Ill I ; ^^^B 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

fSpquLJ- ©up^rtg^ljgtt. 

Shelf _ -X £ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



FR 27 1885 



Before the Foot-Lights 



BY REV. F. M. IAMS, 

AUTHOR OF 

"BEHIND THE SCENES." 



The Truth Shall Make You Free." — Jesus. 



V '005 1 1 



Sr 



CINCINNATI, O.: 

G. W. Lasher, Publisher. 

1885. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, by 

F. M. IAMS, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



PREFACE. 



This book is intended as a sequel to Behind the 
Scenes. In that work the author gives the reader an 
idea of the severe struggles through which he be- 
came a Baptist. There the reader may watch certain 
processes of thought resulting in a firm conviction 
of the truth ; here he may inspect a portion of the 
evidences on which that conviction rests. There he 
may dwell on some of the incidents of an earnest 
inquest after the old gospel - practice ; here he may 
see that practice accurately and distinctly mapped 
out by many of the most competent among those 
who refuse to observe it. There he may study a 
conflict of opinions; here he finds himself in an 
arsenal full of Baptist ammunition furnished by first- 
class pedobaptist factories. 

It is a significant fact that the most eminent pedo- 
baptist expositors and writers, in ever-growing num- 
bers, are turning the shotted batteries of Divine 
Truth upon the citadels of pedobaptist errors. In 
(iii) 



IV PREFACE. 

these pages the writer would aid them in this good 
work, by combining many of those batteries in such 
way that they may deliver one tremendous, pro- 
longed broadside against Sprinkling and Infant Bap- 
tism. Having great faith in the honesty of the 
masses of his pedobaptist brethren, he invites them 
to ponder the testimonies of scores of their very 
best writers, as set forth in these pages, in the con- 
fident hope that very many of them will do so, and 
that, doing so, they will discern and obey the truth. 

Some of our good Baptist friends have an idea 
that many pedobaptists are afraid to read up on 
pedobaptist practices, and it must be owned that 
facts are not wanting to justify that idea, in very 
many instances. A good way to refute it would be 
to march boldly up to these Footlights, and read 
every page, and every paragraph, carefully and 
prayerfully. The author charges nothing for this 
suggestion, and ventures to hope that many will act 
upon it. 

Trusting that this book may contribute, in some 
small degree at least, to the triumph of the truth, 
and to the unity and peace of the Churches of 
Christ, he sends it forth in the name of the Master, 
invoking his blessing upon all who may read it. 

F. M. Iams. 



CONTENTS. 







PAGE. 


I. 


The Real Issue, .... 


. 7 


II. 


The Kingship of Christ, 7 


30 


III. 


Sectarianism a Curse, . . 


. . 51 


IV. 


Testimony of the Lexicons, . • 


* 68 


V. 


Concessions of Pedobaptist Writers, 


. . 87 


VI. 


Testimony of the Encyclopedias, 


no 


VII. 


The Symbolism of Baptism, 


. . 127 


VIII. 


Infant Baptism, ..... 


153 


IX. 


History of Infant Baptism, 


. • 175 


X. 


More Witnesses, . ». 


200 


XI. 


Pedobaptist Defenses, . . . 


. . 219 


XII. 


The Foot-lights Focalized, . . . 

(V) 


239 



BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 



i. 

THE REAL ISSUE. 



" Why not come back into your old church home t" 
• — An Old Friend. 

My Dear Brother : — Your question attests 
your friendship, and therefore I have read it 
with great pleasure. It proves that your con- 
fidence in me is unchanged, and that our Chris- 
tian fellowship still survives, in all its old-time 
vigor and sweetness, despite the sundering of 
our church relations, and I cherish it as a very 
precious memento. At the same time it touches 
the very core of all our differences, and chal-. 
lenges a candid consideration and a frank and 
courteous reply. 

You are not mistaken in thinking that I still 
(7) 



8 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

have a very high regard for my pedobaptist 
brethren. The truth is that I love them very 
dearly. But when you ask, ' ' Why not come 
back into your old church home?" truth obliges 
me to reply, I can not, for many good reasons. 
It is one thing to love the good in our brethren, 
but quite another thing to condone and fellow- 
ship the bad in their practices, by entering into 
church relations with them. I recognize their 
faith, commend their zeal, and glory in their 
"labors of love;" but from their heretical 
views and practices I am obliged to dissent, by 
many considerations, some of which I will 
cheerfully submit to your inspection. 

But first permit me, my dear brother, to 
remind you that the issue between Baptists and 
their opponents is one of Bible fact. If it were a 
question of taste, or a matter of mere senti- 
ment, as many good people imagine, we might 
well treat it as a small affair, turning from the 
discussion of it, as a matter of slight importance, 
or giving it up at once as a problem that never 
can be definitely settled. 

The old saw, "There is no accounting for 
tastes," is as true among Christians as else- 
where. Tastes differ in all the churches quite 
as much and as unaccountably as in the camps 
of the "Philistines." One is fond of gay 



THE REAL ISSUE. 9 

colors, another prefers more modest tints r and 
a third admires the ''Quaker drab," Walking 
in flowery meadows, one is charmed by the 
delicate pansies, another is attracted by the 
sweet-scented clover blossoms, while others see 
greater beauty in flowers of a larger growth. 

We may cultivate taste, but rarely, if ever, 
can we create it or radically change it. Topsy- 
like, it just grows, but whence, or how, or why, 
who can tell? It reaches out in this direction 
or in that like the ivy on the church wall, but 
unlike that docile plant, it resents the interven- 
tion of those who would direct it into new 
paths by the compulsion of reason or the 
strong hand of authority. And though we 
amuse ourselves by learned talks about the 
laws of taste, they are a mere figment of the 
imagination. It has no law but its own sweet 
will. It is itself a law to its victim. Like 
another "Old Man of the Sea," it rides, and 
whom it rides it rules. 

Who cares to reason with a taste? A man 
may be wise as Solomon, vigorous as Peter, 
gentle and loving as John, or exact and logical 
as Paul ; nay, he may combine all these grand 
qualities, and in every way he may be fully 
equipped for the contest, he may be the very 
embodiment of wit and wisdom, of piety and 



T^ BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

learning, but all in vain — one poor little taste 
will beat him every time. 

Evidently, therefore, if the issue between 
Baptists and pedobaptists were one of mere 
taste or sentiment, it would endure forever. 
Those who admire sprinkling on aesthetic 
grounds, and practice it as "the more beauti- 
ful" way, would always continue to do so; and 
those who feel that infant baptism is a great 
privilege, and that the Church ought to be 
composed of believers and their children, 
would feel so to the -end of the chapter. And 
on the other hand, those Baptists, if any, with 
whom immersion is a mere sentiment, could 
never be persuaded, to give it up, no matter 
how convincing the evidence against it. Thence 
it would follow that there must ever be a wide, 
painful and destructive schism in the body of 
Christ ; a schism at once without rational excuse, 
or reasonable hope of remedy; a schism that 
undeniably scandalizes our common Christian- 
ity, impedes the progress of the gospel, mars 
the unity and impairs the beauty and strength 
of the Church, and causes multitudes to con- 
tinue in the darkness and guilt of unbelief; a 
schism that fatally antagonizes the prayer of 
our Lord that his people may all be one, by 
rending them into many ; a schism that, resting 



THE REAL ISSUE. 1 1 

upon likes and dislikes and mere arbitrary pref- 
erences, must be as permanent as its cause. 

And you will agree, my brother, that a strong 
confirmation of this view is seen in the conduct 
of those who regard the issue as only an affair 
of personal taste or feeling. They are not 
open to conviction. Argument is lost upon 
them, not because they are not able to appreci- 
ate it and feel its force ; nor because they are 
dishonest and repudiate their own convictions 
of right and of duty ; nor because they do not 
love the truth for its own sake, and for Christ's 
sake; but simply because they regard this 
whole question, in all its parts, as a matter of 
personal preference, in which each one may 
rightfully consult his own convenience and 
pleasure. They do not think of it as a question 
of Bible fact, or as a matter involving Christian 
principle and allegiance to the authority of 
Christ. They do not realize the fact that Christ 
has spoken the decisive word in respect to it. 

They have been told a thousand times by 
those in whom they confide as wise and pious 
teachers, that "the Master is silent about it, 
leaving each one to make his own choice;" 
and, believing it to be a matter of indifference 
to the dear Savior, they proceed to please 
themselves. 



12 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

And as each one gratifies his own taste, he 
laughs at the protests of his neighbors, or 
resents -them as an impertinence. For he 
looks upon every appeal to the Scriptures, and 
upon every argument professedly drawn from 
them, with suspicion, rejecting them without 
examination, as so many covert attempts to 
coerce his taste. He says he has just as much 
right as any one to consult his own tastes in 
these matters, and that is undeniably true. 
And so he settles down in his own chosen 
ways, perfectly satisfied and almost unchange- 
ably fixed. It is with him a question of taste, 
and his tastes are not likely to change. If he 
chances to be in the right, it is well, for he will 
count one in behalf of truth, and that is some- 
thing ; but if he happens to be in the wrong, it 
is bad, indeed, for there he will almost certainly 
remain to the end — a pious, but incurable, dev- 
otee of error. 

But convince him, first of all, that the issue 
is not one of taste, nor of sentiment, but of 
Bible fact, of scriptural truth,- of Christian 
principle, and, if he is a real Christian, he will 
hasten to investigate it prayerfully and thor- 
oughly by a searching study of the Divine 
Word. 

And herein, humanly speaking, lies our only 



THE REAL ISSUE. 1 3 

hope of the ultimate settlement of all the ques- 
tions belonging to and growing out of this 
great controversy. The issue is not one of 
likes and dislikes, of mere personal conven- 
ience, of arbitrary custom, or of baseless fan- 
cies, but of plain, sober, get-at-able Bible fact. 
The law of Christ concerning it is written in 
his Word, not obscurely, but plainly. It is 
stated in terms distinct and unequivocal. The 
words employed are definite in their meaning, 
and their sense may be very easily ascertained, 
beyond any reasonable doubt, by all who 
earnestly desire to know the truth. The will 
of the Master, clearly and fully expressed in 
his own words, and in the words of his inspired 
apostles, is illustrated in his actions and in 
theirs. The words and the actions so perfectly 
correspond each with the other, that no one 
who attentively and prayerfully compares them 
can long remain in doubt respecting duty. 
The Master, baptized ' ' into* the Jordan " (Mark 
i. 9), indicates clearly the act constituting bap- 
tism. His apostles, baptizing only those who 
profess faith in him, indicate with equal clear- 
ness the proper subjects of the ordinance. In 
this way, as by a series of plain, simple object 
lessons, the Scriptures set forth the truth so 



See Revised Version of 1881. 



14 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

clearly that it may be readily and unerringly 
known by every earnest Christian. And this 
is only another way of saying that the Bible is 
a success — a true revelation — actually revealing 
that which it undertakes to reveal. Surely, my 
brother, this is not an extravagant statement. 
The Divine Word plainly describes all those 
specific acts of obedience and of duty which it 
specifically requires at our hands. Will any 
Christian dare to dispute this simple statement? 
If it be true, then that Word affords an infallible 
criterion by which every one may test the vary- 
ing doctrines and practices challenging atten- 
tion and acceptance. And the process is a 
very simple one — an honest and constant 
appeal to "the law and the testimony," with a 
settled, prayerful purpose to accept and obey 
whatever of truth and of duty they may enjoin 
or inculcate. And the results of such an 
appeal must be well-nigh uniform. Perhaps 
there may be here and there an exception, due 
to some unfortunate personal twist or defect. 
But the rule will ever be uniformity of results 
among the great mass of seekers after the 
truth ; otherwise the Scriptures themselves are 
at fault. For if we admit that the Scriptures 
require baptism at our hands, as they certainly 
do, and yet claim that it is not so defined that 



THE REAL ISSUE. 1 5 

we can decide definitely what it is, that we do 
not know, and that we never can determine in 
what action it consists, we shall find it very- 
difficult to retain our confidence in them as the 
Word of God. A thousand questions will 
spring up in our hearts and a great host of 
insuperable difficulties will beset our path, con- 
fronting and confounding our faith in the Bible. 
If it be indeed a revelation of the Divine Will 
concerning us, why is it that it does not make 
our duty plain in those things which it requires 
us to do? Is it possible that inspiration can 
not define the act of baptism so that men may 
know just what it is? What sane man can for 
a moment believe a thing so absurd? But if 
inspiration can make it plain, why are we left 
in doubt about it? Can perpetual schisms and 
controversies among his disciples be pleasing 
to the Master? Has he purposely left this 
whole matter indefinite and obscure, that his 
people may be always divided about it? Nay, 
that can not be, for he earnestly prays that 
"they all may be one," and he evidently 
regards their oneness as the conclusive evi- 
dence of his Messiahship — "that the world 
may believe that thou hast sent me." How 
can there be oneness of his people, without 
oneness and distinctness in the revelation of his 



l6 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

will concerning vital doctrines and practical 
duties ? How can they agree respecting duties 
that are not defined in the Word? How can 
there be such convincing oneness in the 
absence of any determinate rule of duty? 

Can it be just to charge us with some specific 
duty, and yet to leave that duty so indetermin- 
ate that no one can ever certainly know 
whether he has performed the thing required? 
A human government, treating its citizens or 
subjects thus, would richly merit and surely 
receive the condemnation and hearty execra- 
tion of all mankind, as intolerably unjust. It 
would be denounced and overthrown as an in- 
supportable tyranny. Is our Lord less consid- 
erate and just than weak, sinful men? Is he 
an unreasonable tyrant? Here is a solemn 
duty of some sort involving some action by 
way of obedience; but what is that action? 
Here is a revelation; it is our sole and supreme 
rule-of doctrine and duty, and by it we are to 
be judged; but what does it reveal? If in 
matters of duty its meaning can not be known, 
then it is not a revelation from God. He is 
certainly able to express his own will clearly 
and definitely; and he is too just, and wise, 
and good to leave us in hopeless darkness re- 
specting any duty enjoined upon us. He may 



THE REAL ISSUE. If 

not choose to tell us why it is commanded, or 
to explain all the far-reaching consequences of 
the conduct required. He may require this or 
that simply because it pleases him to do so ; 
but though the reason for so doing may not be 
explained, the thing commanded will always 
be stated definitely and plainly, so that all may 
know precisely what they are required to do. 
Less than this no man dare affirm of God as a 
moral governor. And a careful study of the 
Scriptures will satisfy every candid mind that 
they always conform to this just principle. 

My brother, the Bible is ?iot at fault. It is 
not, as some of its enemies have said, "like a 
fiddle, on which you can play whatever tune 
you will." It is not responsible for the dis- 
cords and divisions so rife in the Christian 
world. It utters no uncertain sound. In all 
matters of vital truth and practical duty, its 
voices are accordant and intelligible to all. If 
men do not hear them alike and understand 
them alike, the fault is in them, not in it. You 
agree that outside the pages of inspiration there 
is no warrant for the existence of church or ordi- 
nance. They then are creatures of the Divine 
Word, depending upon it for their being, and 
for their right to be. That word is at once 
their charter and their supreme law, fixing un- 

2 



1 8 BEFORE THE FOOT- LIGHTS. 

changeably the character of the Church, deter- 
mining the elements that shall compose it and 
the ordinances that shall be observed by it, 
both in character and form. Aside from that 
word no church has any right to exist, nor 
aside from it has any man any right to baptize. 
Nor has the Church any right to be other than 
that word requires, in membership, or in doc- 
trines and usages. And the same thing is true 
in respect to ordinances. As no man may of 
right baptize any one except by authority of 
the Divine Word, so may he not baptize any 
others than of the class indicated in that word 
as the scripturally qualified subjects of baptism, 
nor may he baptize those in any other way than 
that prescribed by that word. 

This is too evident to require a single word 
of proof. And it is equally evident that, if all 
men had always consulted the Divine Word, and 
faithfully obeyed it in constituting churches and 
in administering ordinances, there would never 
have been any controversy about baptism, nor 
would the Church have been so rudely and 
fatally rent into a multitude of discordant, war- 
ring sects. All who are unwilling to impeach 
the Holy Scriptures, and attempt to cast the 
blame upon them, must accept this conclusion. 

It may be unpalatable, as it must be sad to 



THE REAL ISSUE. I9 

all ; but since the divisions exist, and since the 
Word of God can not be at fault, they are 
chargeable to Christian men. 

My brother, it is plain that the Baptists and 
their opponents can not both be right. There 
is such an antagonism between them, that one 
or the other must be decidedly wrong. The 
Baptist regards the gospel church as a com- 
pany of regenerate persons — baptized believers 
— holding Christ as their only lawgiver, main- 
taining the doctrines and observing the ordi- 
nances of the gospel in due order, while nearly 
all pedobaptists look upon the church as a* 
mixed company, composed of believers and 
their children. The difference between these 
two views of the gospel church is immense. 
It is the difference between the Apostolic 
Church # in Jerusalem — spiritual, fraternal, holy 
and humble — and the Romish Church of to-day 
■ — worldly, ambitious, proud and corrupt. The 
one loves and serves with the spirit of her dear 
Master; the other covets, and grasps, and rules 
with the greed and the sword of a cruel Caesar. 
The one is in the world, but not of it; the 
other is in the world and of it — of it in spirit, 
in ambition, in craftiness, in policies, and 
very largely in methods and details of govern- 
ment. 



20 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

I do not mean to say that all pedobaptist 
churches are Romish ; but the pedobaptist idea 
of the church finds in the Romish Church its 
fullest and most consistent and logical embodi- 
ment. In many pedobaptist churches a most 
blessed spirit of evangelism holds their ideal of 
the church constantly in check and prevents the 
development of its legitimate results by a con- 
tinued infusion of a living spirituality. But in 
the Church of Rome, in the Church of En- 
gland, and in a large share of the Lutheran 
Churches of Germany and the United States, 
the pedobaptist ideal is fairly seen in its mature 
fruits. Between these and the Apostolic 
Church in Jerusalem, the contrast is broad, 
deep and painful ; but the difference, vast as it 
is, is due chiefly to the introduction of infants 
and unconverted children into the membership. 
These, introduced in great numbers, in accord- 
ance with the pedobaptist idea that the church 
is to be composed of ' ' believers and their chil- 
dren," and growing up unregenerate, speedily 
converted those churches into great organized 
sections of a wicked world. 

Apostolic Jerusalem, or Papal Rome — which 
is scriptural? Apostolic Jerusalem, or ration- 
alistic German Lutheranism, or Episcopal 
Church of England formalism — which of these, 



THE REAL ISSUE. 21 

my brother, is the true type of the Gospel 
Church? The Baptist affirms that Apostolic 
Jerusalem is the true type. The pedobaptist 
so defines the church, that, if we accept his 
definition and obey it, we can never approxi- 
mate that type. The issue is a very distinct 
one — an issue of fact, to be tested and settled 
by the Word of God. 

Again: The Baptist deems believers — those 
who make a credible profession of faith in our 
Lord Jesus — the only proper subjects of bap- 
tism ; but the pedobaptist insists that children 
and unconscious babes are also suitable subjects 
of the initial Christian ordinance. This is an 
issue of fact, to be tested by the Word of God 
al'one. If that Word requires, or in any way 
justifies, their baptism, then let them be bap- 
tized, but not otherwise. Baptists affirm that 
the immersion of a professed believer, and that 
alone, is Bible baptism ; but pedobaptists insist 
that sprinkling or pouring of children and 
infants, as well as of adult believers, is also 
scriptural baptism. Here, again, is an issue of 
fact. Is sprinkling baptism? Is pouring bap- 
tism ? What is the testimony of the Scriptures 
about it? Do they command sprinkling or 
pouring as baptism? Do they contain exam- 
ples of such baptism? If so, it can be easily 



22 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

shown ; but if not, then that fact can be defi- 
nitely ascertained. 

For all these great issues are questions of 
Bible fact; not of my taste, or of yours; of 
my preference, or of yours; of my ideas of 
propriety or of convenience, or of yours. As 
our opinions, preferences, tastes, desires, or 
ideas of the fitness of things, could never con- 
stitute a sufficient warrant for baptizing in any 
way whatever, or for instituting a church of 
any sort, so they can not justify any modifica- 
tion, either of baptism or of the church, in our 
practice. 

Now, my brother, I think you can fully un- 
derstand those obstacles that forbid my return 
to the pedobaptist fold. They may be summed 
up in one sentence: The Word of God is in my 
way. The issue between us is an issue of fact 
— not of taste nor of sentiment; and the Word 
of God, the only rightful or safe umpire in the 
matter, is against you. If I should come back 
to you, then the Word of God would be against 
me, too, and I would soon feel myself obliged 
to change my base. 

If the things that separate us were only mat- 
ters of taste on my part, or questions of pref- 
erence, or mere sentiment, I protest solemnly 
that I would not let them stand in the way one 



THE REAL ISSUE. 23 

moment. If they were really things indifferent 
— mere forms that one might innocently accept 
or reject, such as this or that attitude in prayer, 
or the use of this or that liturgy, or none at all, 
in public worship, or the wearing of this or 
that sort of coat or gown in the sacred desk — 
then I would certainly say, Let each one consult 
his own taste in such matters. I will frankly 
admit that I prefer a black coat in the sacred 
desk; but if you were happier, or more elo- 
quent in a white gown, why, then, I would 
insist on your right to wear it. I will go 
further: Rather than occasion schism in the 
Church of Christ, I would consent to eat eggs 
three times a day during Lent, and even for a 
month afterward. Yes, and that is not all. I 
would actually agree to eat fish during the 
same period, stipulating only that it should be 
well-cooked and properly seasoned. 

This ought to convince you that I am not at 
all bigoted in matters of taste and sentiment; 
and it is my firm conviction that in such things 
Baptists generally are every whit as liberal as I 
am. But when it comes to matters of con- 
science, you will concede at once that we 
ought not to do wrong, even to secure a 
coveted good; and I think you will also admit 
that we ought not to do that which we firmly 



24 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

believe to be wrong, in order that good may 
come of it. Now, we Baptists regard the 
thorough, honest union of all Christians in a 
true, gospel church fellowship as a very great, 
and a very desirable good, and we are willing 
to do all we dare to bring it about; but we 
dare not do wrong to secure it. And, indeed, 
it can not be secured in that way, were we 
willing to do the wrong; for the resulting 
union would not be deep and real, but superfi- 
cial, and, on our part, hypocritical. You 
would despise our treason to our convictions of 
right, and we would despise ourselves for our 
want of loyalty to the Word of God. There 
is the insuperable difficulty in the way of Bap- 
tists who would come to you. I know, my 
dear brother, that you desire a union of all 
Christians, including Baptists; but, really, I 
can think of only two ways in which such 
union can ever be secured. 

The first and most obvious way, since Bap- 
tists are but a minority of the Christian world, 
is for you pedobaptists to convince us that our 
understanding of the Word of God, in the 
matters at issue between us, is wrong, and that 
your view of it is right. And if we really are 
mistaken about it, you surely ought to be able 
to convince us of that fact, for you have in 



THE REAL ISSUE. 2$ 

your ranks hosts of talented and highly educa- 
ted men, who certainly can so "put things" as 
to make the true appear the better reason, 
Besides, in dealing with myself and with the 
great mass of our Baptist ministers, you have 
two very great advantages. 

We like to be popular, perhaps as well as 
other folks, and yours is the popular side. If 
you could only win us over to your views, peo- 
ple would no longer stigmatize us as "bigots," 
a title that grinds; but they would call us 
"good fellows," "large-hearted," "sensible," 
liberal;" and we, like other men, relish com- 
mendation. Then, hold your ear close and I 
will whisper it: If you could make us see our 
way clear to be pedobaptists, many of us would 
be greatly benefited financially, for we would 
get larger salaries. Now understand me. Our 
people are not mean, nor stingy, but they are 
comparatively few and poor, and they are car- 
rying on a vast work for Christ. Nor are our 
ministers mercenary above others, for they 
labor quite as ably and quite as faithfully as 
their pedobaptist ministerial neighbors, and 
generally for much less pay by way of salary. 
Now, my brother, you can very readily under- 
stand how a good man, badly pinched for 
means, might consent the more readily to 



26 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

abandon a bad cause for a better one, when the 
change, right in itself, is sure to replenish his 
flattened purse. So, if you are right, the ad- 
vantage is all on your side, and you ought to 
succeed. But I confess this plan is a little 
risky. Sometimes your people, in trying to 
pull our people out, break in themselves and 
go clear under, just as the boys who go skating 
often get into the water while trying to get 
some unfortunate one out of it. An instance 
just in point occurs to me. A Baptist gentle- 
man residing in a certain Western State, a man 
of note in the State, married an excellent Pres- 
byterian lady. She was very anxious that her 
husband should become a member of her 
church, and often spoke to him about it. The 
Governor, who was a very wise, practical man, 
finally told her that he would leave the entire 
matter with her, on one condition, viz.: that 
she should make a thorough, prayerful study 
of the subject, until confident that she fully 
understood the teaching of the Word of God 
about it; and then if she would say that, in 
her judgment, the Word of God required him 
to go with her into the Presbyterian Church, 
he would do so at once. She accepted the 
condition joyfully, and at once entered heartily 
into the investigation of the subject. Some 



THE REAL ISSUE. 2J 

weeks afterward, she timidly said to her hus- 
band: "I have examined that matter very 
thoroughly, and I desire to be baptized, and to 
join the Baptist Church with you." 

That is the great danger, my brother, in 
trying to win us over to your views. Those 
who attempt it are so apt to become Baptists 
themselves ! The pedobaptist ice is pretty 
thin, and those who venture upon it are almost 
certain to break through into the baptismal 
font. Of course, that don't hurt them, but it 
mortifies you, and gives you pain. I therefore 
propose a better and more speedy way of 
effecting the desired union, viz. : that you pedo- 
baptists come over to us. 

And this proposition is worthy your prayer- 
ful consideration ; for you all acknowledge that 
we are right in affirming that immersion is 
scriptural baptism, and that believers are scrip- 
tural subjects of baptism, and that believers are 
scripturally qualified, when baptized, for mem- 
bership in the Church of Christ. You admit, 
also, that baptism is a public confession of 
Christ — putting on Christ before the world — 
and that his Supper properly belongs to such, 
and only such, as profess themselves to be his 
friends. 

Thus you confess that all we affirm is true, 



28 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

while you are by no means sure that the things 
we deny are true. We deny that sprinkling is 
baptism, that infants are scriptural subjects of 
baptism, and that they are scripturally qualified 
for membership in the church. Now, my 
brother, you know that you can not prove that 
sprinkling is scriptural baptism, and you con- 
fess that you have no scriptural precept or 
example to justify the baptism of infants. 
And hosts of pedobaptist churches reject infant 
membership as decidedly as we Baptists reject 
it. You can come to us without any sacrifice 
of principle, and without giving up so much as 
one iota of established truth. 

In our Baptist Churches you will find, clearly 
held and duly honored, every truth and every 
practice that is undeniably right and scriptural 
— yourself being judge — while you will miss 
only those doubtful and troublesome opinions 
and practices which you will find it impossible 
to establish by the authority of the Word of 
God, and which many of your own people 
openly reject and contemn, if not with your 
connivance, at least, without your open, vigor- 
ous condemnation. 

Now, is not this a fair proposition? And it 
is one that you can accept without any loss of 
self-respect, or the least degree of humiliation. 



THE REAL ISSUE. 20, 

And I can assure you that it will greatly add 
to your comfort and Christian assurance to 
know that you have conformed your creed and 
your practice to the clearly-perceived will of 
the Master. You know I have tried it, and 
speak from experience. If you lament our 
separation, come to Christ's standard of doc- 
trine and duty, and there you will find us, 
ready to greet you with a hearty fellowship in 
Christ. Yours for the truth, . 



30 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 



II. 

THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 



1 ' Ye call me Master and Lord ; and ye say welly 
for so I am." — Jesus. 

My Dear Brother — In the estimation of all 
true Baptists the Kingship of Christ is a vital 
fact. To them he is in very deed the King of 
Saints. They behold him on the throne, and 
hasten to " crown him Lord of all." They 
accept fully the declaration of the great apostle 
to the Gentiles, that ' ' Christ is the Head of the 
Church," whence they conclude that he is her 
one supreme Lawgiver. Hence, his will is to 
them the end of all controversy. In the most 
practical way they call him " Master" and 
"Lord," by making his Word their highest 
rule of doctrine and of duty. With them his 
voice silences doubt, debate and dissent, for it 
is the voice of their King, and its utterance is 
the final word, from which there is no appeal. 

Remembering his words, "One is your 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 3 1 

Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren," 
they insist upon an absolute equality of rights 
among brethren, and an absolute subjection of 
all to that one Master. Their churches, conse- 
quently, are in themselves so many simple 
democracies, in which all the members have 
equal rights ; but, considered in its relation to 
our Lord, each of those churches is a pure 
Christocracy, knowing no law and, in matters 
of faith and practice, confessing allegiance to no 
authority but that of Christ alone. The Holy 
Scriptures are the one "Book of Discipline" in 
all those churches, and the will of the Lord 
therein recorded is their unchangeable law. 

In every case of doubt or of disagreement 
about any matter of doctrine or of practice, all 
true Baptists appeal not to the Fathers, nor to 
tradition, nor to councils, nor to musty terms 
of theological speculation, nor yet to the pop- 
ular preferences and tastes of the masses, but 
to "the law and the testimony," believing very 
firmly that "if they speak not according to 
this Word, it is because there is no light in 
them." And this loyalty to Christ as King, 
manifesting itself in a constant and unswerving- 
obedience to his will as revealed in his Written 
Word, is the real source of all the peculiarities 
observable among Baptists. The average Bap- 



2,2 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

tists have no natural partiality for immersion. 
If it were left to their choice, as a matter of 
taste or of convenience, they would be quite 
as apt as any others to adopt sprinkling, and 
discontinue the use of immersion altogether. 
Nor would they adhere to immersion because 
of any notion of a superior efficacy in the bath, 
for they do not believe there is one particle of 
virtue in water, no matter how it be used, nor 
whether the quantity employed be little or 
much, to cleanse the soul from the pollution of 
sin. Their only hope of such cleansing is not 
in the baptismal water, but in the atoning 
blood of Jesus, which alone, when accepted in 
true penitence and faith, is able to cleanse the 
soul from all unrighteousness. 

But Jesus has commanded immersion, and 
Jesus is King, and true Baptists have no choice 
in the matter — an authority which they dare 
not disobey has fully determined it. And the 
same thing is true of all their other peculiari- 
ties. They adhere to them simply because 
loyalty to the King requires it. Take infant 
baptism. Who will pretend that Baptists do 
not love the little ones quite as well as do other 
people? Who will rise up and say that Baptist 
parents, as a class, are one whit less loving and 
affectionate toward their babes than other 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 33 

Christian parents? Why, then, do they refuse 
baptism to their little ones? Simply because 
the King did not provide it for them, but only 
for such as consciously receive him, and intelli- 
gently believe in him. If he had said, " Bap- 
tize the babes," then they would hasten to do 
it, no matter what objections might be urged 
against it, for the command of the King is all 
the warrant they require for any practice that 
may challenge acceptance. With them Christ's 
prerogative is indisputable. In everything it is 
his to command, and ours unhesitatingly to 
hear and obey. 

Thus the Kingship of Christ is the formative — 
the fundamental idea among Baptists. It con- 
trols them everywhere and always, determining 
their beliefs and their practices from first to last. 
Their rejection of sprinkling, and their faithful 
adherence to the practice of immersion, are due 
to this idea alone. So, too, their practice of 
believer's baptism only, and their persistent re- 
jection of the baptism of infants, are due to the 
same fundamental principle. And in like man- 
ner their most offensive usage, the practice of 
restricted communion, is due to the same con- 
trolling idea — the practical recognition of the 
Kingship of our Lord in everything relating to 
his people and to his house. For his authority 



34 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

is as complete in the order of the ordinances as 
in any principle or precept of his gospel, and 
we may not set it aside. 

Now, my dear brother, incredible as it may 
seem to you, this practical recognition of the 
Kingship of Christ is really the most vital of 
all the matters at issue between Baptists and 
pedobaptists. Theoretically all who call them- 
selves Christians confess that Christ is King. 
But theory is one thing, and far too often 
practice is another and widely different thing. 
Theoretically our pedobaptist friends say Christ 
is King, and almost constantly they sing, "Crown 
him Lord of all;" but practically they reject 
his Kingly authority in the matter of baptism, 
and instead of rendering a joyful and implicit 
obedience to his command, they change that 
command to suit their own tastes, and then 
calmly tell us that their new way will do as 
well. Does this seem a grave charge against a 
vast body of the professed disciples of our 
Lord, and one that ought not lightly to be 
made ? Well, I admit it. It is a grave charge, 
but it is as true as it is grave, and the evidences 
of its truth abound on every side. The current 
defense of sprinkling, viz.: that it will do as 
well as immersion, deliberately sets aside the 
Kingship of Christ. It assumes as true that 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 35 

which the pedobaptists of this age almost uni- 
versally concede — that the Lord commands im- 
mersion — and assures us that a something else, 
which he does not command, will answer just as 
tvell. In other words, it weighs the command 
of our Lord in the scales of its own petty, 
human reason, and dares to set it aside, and to 
substitute for it a something different, which it 
pronounces just as good. If this is not a prac- 
tical rejection of the Kingship of our Lord, 
what is it? 

Suppose the Czar of Russia should issue a 
decree that every soldier in the Russian army 
be clothed in a uniform -of blue, trimmed with 
white and red, after a certain well-denned pattern. 
Then suppose that whole regiments and brigades, 
and even many great general divisions of that 
army, should forthwith don a uniform of red, 
trimmed with orange and green. And imagine 
that the soldiers wearing this unauthorized uni- 
form should ridicule those who persisted in 
wearing the exact. kind of uniform prescribed 
by the imperial decree ! Would it be too much 
to say of them that they practically rejected the 
kingship of the Czar? You say the cases are 
not parallel, and I confess that they do ' not 
exactly coincide, fpr the Czar, though a great 
autocrat, is, after all, only a man, and it often 



36 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

happens that he is not even a manly man ; but 
the Lord Jesus is the ' ' King of kings and Lord 
of lords," and there seems to be no possible 
pretext for disregarding his decree. 

There are, indeed, a few of our pedobaptist 
friends who dispute about the meaning of his 
decree respecting baptism, insisting that it does 
not enjoin an immersion in water. But un- 
fortunately for their claim of loyalty, they all 
with one accord accept an immersed person as 
scripturally baptized, thus conceding the very 
thing insisted upon by Baptists, viz.: that im- 
mersion is the baptism enjoined by the decree. 
But if any are disposed to dissent from this 
conclusion as unwarranted, and to say that while 
they accept the immersed as baptized, they still 
insist that immersion is not the thing com- 
manded, they only make a bad matter worse, 
for if immersion is not the thing commanded, 
then to accept it in the place of that thing is 
to indorse and in the most solemn manner to 
approve an act of disobedience — to call that 
obedience which they know is not obedience. 
If this is loyalty to Christ, it is certainly loyalty 
of a very strange sort, such as none of the 
princes of this world will ever be apt to covet 
toward themselves. 

But perhaps you will ask, "Are Baptists 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 3/ 

better than pedobaptists? are they more holy, 
or more loyal to Christ? 7 ' And it may be that, 
like some very good people whom I have met, 
you will deem these questions quite unanswer- 
able. But wait a little. Has not some one 
said, To obey is better than sacrifice? If 
this be true (and it is the word of the Lord by 
the mouth of the prophet Samuel), does it not 
follow that of two professed disciples of Christ, 
in all other respects alike, but differing in this, 
that one seeks to obey him in all things, while 
the other is content to obey him in some things 
only, and in other things live in open disobedi- 
ence to his laws, the former will have the divine 
approval more fully than the latter? Is it not 
true that, other things being equal, he who is 
the most obedient is morally the best, the most 
holy, the most loyal to Christ? These questions 
admit but one answer, and that answer demon- 
strates that just in proportion as Baptists are 
more obedient than pedobaptists, they are more 
loyal to their King, the Lord Christ. 

Said a Methodist lady to her husband, a good 
Baptist deacon : ' ' My dear, the arguments of 
your pastor seem very conclusive, but they 
involve one great difficulty that I can not 
overcome. If they are true, then Baptists 
must be better and holier than those who 



38 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

practice sprinkling, and, of course, that can 
not be." 

''I declare," replied the' deacon, "I never 
thought of that. It seems to me you are right 
about it. We Baptists are all poor, miserable 
sinners at the best. When we would do good 
evil is present with us, and we are not holy at 
all — much less, more holy than pedobaptists. 
There must be some mistake about this matter, 
and I will go to town and ask our pastor to 
explain it." 

So to town he went, and submitted the matter 
to his pastor. When his pastor frankly admitted 
that those who obey Christ are actually more 
holy than those who do not obey him, he was 
greatly astonished, but soon concluded that 
Obedience, other things being equal, is the true 
measure of holiness, and, like a sensible man, 
he went home and told his wife that, after all, 
a Baptist brother who obeys Christ is a better 
Christian and a better man than a Methodist 
brother who refuses to obey him. At the risk, 
therefore, of being charged with the awful 
opinion that there is a real difference between 
those who serve God in an obedient life, and 
those who do not serve him thus, I persist in 
calling your attention to this practical and vital 
issue between Baptists and pedobaptists. And 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 39 

I beg you consider the relation of Baptists to 
this issue. They did not make it, and they are 
in no way responsible for it. They have simply 
obeyed their King as they are in duty bound to 
do. They could not do less, without incurring 
the guilt of disobedience and disloyalty. Con- 
fronted by the command of Christ, they must 
obey or rebel. Prompted alike -by love and 
loyalty, they hasten to obey. Now you must 
admit they could do no less, without subjecting 
themselves to very grave censure, to say the 
least. And you must also admit that, had our 
pedobaptist friends yielded a like obedience to 
the command of the King, there could have 
been no issue between themselves and Baptists 
about it. 

The truth is, that our pedobaptist friends are 
wholly responsible for the existence of this 
issue. They have created it, by practically 
ignoring the Kingship of Christ in certain direc- 
tions. There stands the command of our Lord 
enjoining the duty of immersion. It is plain 
and unequivocal — so plain, indeed, that no 
pedobaptist ever attempts to translate it by 
sprinkle, or pour, or purify. So unequivocal, 
that all pedobaptists who translate it at all, 
render it by immerse or dip, or by some other 
word of the same meaning. And yet, despite 



40 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

these well-known facts, and though confronted 
on every side by unanswerable arguments 
against their practice, our pedobaptist brethren 
persist in substituting sprinkling for immersion, 
and insist that it will do as well. 

The issue is created and maintained, not by 
Baptists, but by the disobedience of pedobap- 
tists to the mandate of the King, the Lord 
Jesus, and it must continue until that disobedi- 
ence ceases. It is neither less nor more than 
an irrepressible conflict, that can be terminated 
only by the practical and actual submission of 
the disobedient to the authority of the King. 

For if Baptists, wearied with the strife, were 
content to ignore it, Christ would raise up some 
other and more faithful people, to maintain the 
prerogatives of his crown and the authority of 
his Kingship. For the issue is primarily 
between Christ on the one side, and all who 
contemn his authority on the other — Baptists 
being a party to it only by reason of their loy- 
alty to their King ; whence it is evident that it 
can terminate only when he is universally and 
cheerfully obeyed by all who call him Lord. 
Baptists may prove recreant to their trust, and 
cease to bear witness to the truth, for they are 
but erring men ; but Christ the Lord has girded 
himself for the conquest, and he will march on 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 41 

victoriously until his Word shall have become 
the supreme law of his kingdom, in fact, as 
well as in profession. 

But meantime, the issue remains. Baptists 
" crown him Lord of all;" and if they fail in 
their obedience, it is the failure that comes 
from human weakness and infirmity, not from 
any boasted superiority of plan or of method, 
devising some other and " easier " way, that will 
do * ' j ust as well ' ' as his way. And pedobaptists 
"crown, him Lord of all," but continue to 
disobey him deliberately, and of set purpose, 
justifying their disobedience by the strange 
plea: "It is a matter of no importance, and 
our way will do just as well." 

Now, my dear brother, will you tell me what 
we Baptists can do ? If we come over to you, 
we will become partakers of your disobedience, 
and of its consequent guilt; and, what seems to 
us still worse, we will dishonor and grieve our 
Lord and Master by joining you in ignoring his 
authority as King. 

On the other hand, if we do not come over 
to you, men will say of us, "They are narrow 
and bigoted;" and thousands of your people 
will echo and approve that saying. In this 
matter we are forced to choose between Christ 
and a host of his professed disciples whom we 



42 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

greatly love. The dilemma is a very painful 
one; but much as we love our erring brethren, 
we love our crucified and risen Lord still more, 
and we feel constrained at all hazards to obey 
his words, as loyal subjects of Jesus Christ our 
King. 

Now, my brother, if you regard the King- 
ship of Christ as a vital fact, you can solve the 
difficulty, so far as you are concerned, by 
obeying the King in the ordinance of baptism. 
If you say that would make you a Baptist, I 
agree with you most heartily; but certainly a 
worse thing than that might happen to you. I 
do not say you can come to us with a good 
conscience; but rather, that by coming to us 
honestly and heartily, you will gain a good con- 
science, and that, like "godliness with content- 
ment," is "great gain." Nor is this statement 
one whit too bold; neither is it in the least 
degree egotistic or uncharitable. For, in 
common with all pedobaptists, you practically 
concede that we are right, by gladly receiving 
such of our members as choose to unite with 
you, as scripturally baptized. For, if they are 
scripturally baptized, so are we ; and therefore 
the baptism for which we contend is the true 
Bible baptism, the whole pedobaptist world 
being the judges. In coming to us, then, you 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 43 

are stepping upon solid ground; ground that 
the entire Christian world concedes to be 
scriptural and true. And you are stepping off 
from very doubtful ground; from ground that, 
at the best you can say of it, is very shaky, 
and, for aught you know, altogether unsafe. 

For you will not deny that? the things in 
debate are not the peculiar views and usages of 
the Baptists, but the peculiar doctrines and 
practices of pedobaptists. The things in dis- 
pute are not believer's baptism, nor immersion 
— these, like ingots of pure gold, are current 
everywhere — but they are infant baptism and 
sprinkling, which a large portion of the Chris- 
tian world rejects utterly as wholly unscriptural, 
and which are defended by their friends mainly 
on the score of convenience, or of churchly 
authority to change at pleasure the ordinances 
of the Lord's house. 

At present you are standing, and with great 
difficulty, on an unstable, boggy marsh, that 
trembles and sinks terribly every time you 
move even one step. Come over to us, by 
simply giving up that which you do not know 
to be true, leaving behind you not one solitary 
conscientious conviction of right or of duty, 
but only a lot of doubtful and useless observ- 
ances, and lo! you will stand upon the solid 



44 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

rock of Bible truth. You know I have tried 
it, and speak from experience. If you say it 
is a costly change, I admit it, for it is hard to 
separate from tried friends, but the certainty 
and comfort it brings are altogether beyond 
price. 

The well-known maxim of the celebrated 
David Crockett, * ' Be sure you are right, then 
go ahead, " is certainly a safe one in religion. 
In dealing with interests of such measureless 
magnitude, a reasonable certainty is the very 
least that a cautious and prudent person ought 
to be satisfied with. Why should any one go 
on beyond into the region of shadows and. of 
doubt? It is not rational or wise to do so; and 
there is nothing to be gained by it, except 
unrest of spirit and possible harm to the soul. 
And this is eminently true in respect to all 
the peculiar pedobaptist usages. Even if well, 
founded, they are not in any way necessary to 
the integrity or the perpetuity of the Church, 
nor to the fullness and completeness of the in- 
dividual Christian character. At the very 
worst, immersion is as good as sprinkling, and 
believer's baptism is as valid and as efficacious as 
infant baptism. Then why not omit the doubt- 
ful practices, and adhere to those which are 
clearly scriptural and right, and which undenia- 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 45 

bly are sufficient to meet all the wants of the 
soul? Why not be sure you are right before 
you go ahead in the administration of the 
solemn ordinances of religion in the name of 
the Lord ? But if you resolve to act upon this 
just and rational principle, you will never 
sprinkle another person, either adult or infant. 
In short, acting on this plain, honest maxim, 
you will tarry with the Baptists until you 
depart for the upper sanctuary. 

Now, my dear brother, I can not return to 
my old church home among my pedobaptist 
friends until this matter of the Kingship of 
Christ can be in some way reconciled to pedo- 
baptist practices. He says to me, "If ye love 
me, keep my commandments; " and so long as 
I honestly strive to keep them, one and all, I 
can say in reply, v ' Lord, thou knowest that I 
love thee;" and, if necessary, I could add, "Be- 
hold the proof that I love thee, in that I do 
keep thy commandments." But should I return 
to my old church home, and resume the practice 
of sprinkling, what reply could I make? Would 
he not say to me, ' ' Why call ye me Lord, Lord, 
and do not the things that I say?" I confess I 
do not see how I could expect him to do other- 
wise. And if I were not a minister, it would 
be equally impossible for me to unite with any 



46 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

pedobaptist church, for he who bids a wrong- 
doer God-speed in his wrong-doing is a partaker 
of his evil deeds. He who aids another in his 
wrong-doing virtually does the wrong himself. 

But perhaps you will say: "Why lay so 
much stress on the Kingship of Christ in this 
matter of baptism ? If we pedobaptists do not 
perfectly obey him in regard to baptism, neither 
do Baptists perfectly obey him in other matters. 
Surely, our Baptist brethren will not claim that 
they always keep all of his commandments. 
They know and confess that they do not. Then 
why make so much ado because we fail on this 
particular one?" 

You voice a difficulty over which many good 
people stumble — a difficulty which has led many 
honest seekers after the truth to conclude that 
Baptists are not sincere in pressing upon others 
the Kingship of Christ, and that they urge it 
chiefly to further their own peculiar denomi- 
national interests. I well remember a time 
when I viewed the matter in exactly that light, 
and I said to our Baptist friends, just as the 
irreligious often say to earnest Christian workers, 
"Physician, heal thyself. " 

But a little reflection will show that the 
difficulty is only apparent, not real. For the 
conceded failure of the Baptists to keep per- 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 47 

fectly all the commandments of the King arises, 
not from any disposition to undervalue any of 
them, as of little or no importance, nor from 
any attempt to set aside any of them on the 
plea that something else will do as well as the 
thing specifically required by our Lord, but 
only from that "weakness of the flesh" of 
which Baptists partake in common with others, 
but of which they certainly have no monopoly. 

But the failure of our pedobaptist friends to 
obey the command to baptize arises from a very 
different source. Sometimes, indeed, it is due 
to ignorance of the true meaning of the com- 
mand, but more generally, as you well know, 
it springs from an utter indifference to the 
command, as a thing of no importance, or still 
worse, from a strong aversion to the thing 
commanded, as inconvenient, or indelicate, or 
rude and barbarous. Not infrequently it arises 
from a selfish, partisan spirit, that dares to put 
the usage of a sect above the command of 
Christ. I do not need to quote any one to 
prove these statements, for no wide-awake man 
can move about in pedobaptist circles for a 
single year, in any community in our land, 
without meeting with many painful evidences 
of their truth. 

It is one thing, through sheer weakness, to 



48 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

fail here and there to render that full and perfect 
obedience to every commandment, which is due 
from every loyal subject of our King, and quite 
another thing to treat any one or more of his 
commands with indifference or contempt, and 
persistently to refuse obedience to it on the 
plea that it is a thing of no consequence, or 
that something else will do quite as well as the 
thing commanded. 

But why should Baptists wait until they shall 
have attained to perfection of obedience, before 
preaching the duty of obedience to pedobaptists? 
Are none but the perfect to preach the truth to 
others? Do pedobaptists wait until they have 
become sinless before preaching the duty of 
repentance to other sinners? Do they refrain 
from rebuking sin in the ungodly because they 
are themselves not altogether free from faults ? 
But if not, why blame the Baptists for declining 
to wait until they are faultless before they point 
gut the glaring faults of others? If only the 
perfect may preach the gospel of righteousness, 
and press the authority of Christ upon the 
hearts and consciences of men, who will hold 
forth the i 'word of life, " or presume to utter one 
word in favor of good morals, or attempt to 
define and defend Christian ethics. . 

There is an eminent fitness in the command 



THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 49 

enjoining baptism, to test the loyalty of Chris- 
tains. It is - a positive command, resting not so 
much on the nature of things, as upon the will 
of its author. Every moral precept commends 
itself to each man's judgment and conscience as 
reasonable and right in itself. We can very 
easily see that obedience will be attended with 
many advantages. Every one understands that, 
in the long run, morality pays, that honesty is 
the best policy, and that truthfulness, purity, 
kindliness, generosity and moderation contribute 
to health, comfort and temporal prosperity. A 
man, therefore, may cheerfully obey all those 
precepts, conducing to such desirable results, 
from purely personal and selfish considerations, 
without one thought of loyalty to their author. 
It follows that such precepts afford no certain 
test of loyalty to Christ, since even the deist 
and the atheist often conform to them, as the 
surest way of winning honor and success in the 
affairs of this life. But not so with baptism. 
There is no evident, undeniable utility in it. 
No one would care to observe it for its own 
sake. Humanly speaking, it is not the best 
policy. Rantism is much easier, and usually it 
is far more popular. And it must be conceded 
that, in itself, it is quite as effective as immer- 
sion. Why, then, should any one be immersed? 
A 



50 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

Can any one assign any other good reason for 
it than simply that Christ requires it ? I confess 
frankly that this is the only reason that I know 
of, and it brings each one to a test, and a severe 
one, of loyalty to Christ. 

Aside from the command and the example of 
our Lord, immersion is inconvenient and some- 
times unsightly. At all events, it is not always 
beautiful in itself, and it adds nothing to manly 
dignity, or womanly grace. And its symbolic 
meaning is not, by any means, flattering to the 
self-esteem of the average man. But when 
we remember that the authority of Christ is 
back of it, then it challenges obedience, and 
tests each man's loyalty to our Lord, in a 
degree altogether unequaled by any other pre- 
cept of the Holy Scriptures. 

Is it not fitting, therefore, that Baptists should 
urge all men to obey it ? And is it strange that 
they should decline to do anything indorsing 
the conduct of those who refuse to comply with 
this plain mandate of the Master? In all this 
they do only that which, as true subjects of 
Christ, they are in duty bound to do. Will 
you end the controversy by obeying our King? 
Fraternally yours, . 



SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 5 I 



III. 

SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 



* 'Mark them which cause divisions [lit. , twofold 
upstandings~\, and avoid them. " — Paul. 

My Dear Brother: — All true Baptists 
believe in the unity of the Churches of Christ. 
Believing in the Holy Scriptures as the Word 
of God, they can not think otherwise than that 
our Lord designed that his churches should be 
one body, as he, its head, is one head. Not, 
indeed, that they should be one in the sense of 
a great overshadowing hierarchy, such as the 
Papacy; nor a vast centralized system of or- 
ganic oneness such as Presbyterianism, or 
Lutheranism, or Methodism, with a complica- 
ted and cumbrous mass of machinery, ruling 
assemblies, conferences and bishops, and sub- 
ordinated churches, or fragments of churches, 
and a subordinated clergy chained by a set of 
man-made rules, which they may not amend, 



5 2 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

but must constantly and carefully obey. All 
these contrivances, together with all types of 
episcopacy, are among the " many inventions" 
which good men, and some not so good, have 
devised from time to time to steady the ark 
of God, or to further interests and ambitions 
not altogether saintly. 

I do not know of any Baptist who believes 
that the Apostolic Churches in Jerusalem and 
Antioch were, in any oi'ganic sense, one church. 
They were two bodies organically, separate and 
distinct each from the other, each one of them 
a complete church in itself, without borrowing 
anything from the other, and each one inde- 
pendent of the other in the sense that it did 
not derive any part of its authority, its rights 
or its privileges from the other. And yet they 
were alike in their organic structure, each 
being in itself a pure democracy, yet each rec- 
ognizing the one King and Lawgiver, the Lord 
Jesus Christ. 

And these two Apostolic Churches were one 
in doctrine, in ordinances, in spirit, in aims 
and in work. They believed in the same Lord, 
rejoiced in the same salvation, rested upon the 
same hope, held forth the same Word of Life, 
taught the same truths, engaged in the same 
work — the evangelization of the world— and 



SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 53 

practiced the self-same baptism — the immersion 
of the professed believer. 

Though organically distinct, there was a real 
and wonderful unity — a oneness of form, of 
faith and of practice — that made them true 
yoke fellows in the spirit and in the work of the 
Master. There was no "upstanding" of the 
one against the other, no clashing of views, of 
practices or of interests. In organization, author- 
ity, rights and duties, they were two churches; 
but in doctrine, spirit, purpose and ordinances, 
they were one church, the one body of Christ. 

And this is the sort of unity of the churches 
in which Baptists devoutly believe, as that 
which the Master desires, and for which he so 
earnestly prays, ' ' That they all may be one ; as 
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that 
they also may be one in us : that the zuorld may 
believe that thou hast sent me. " And this, too, 
is the divine unity which he will ultimately 
secure among his people throughout the whole 
earth, and for which he has not only prayed, 
but also has made ample provision. Listen to 
his own wonderful description of the means by 
which it is to be brought about, and the vast 
and beneficent results which will surely follow 
its accomplishment: "And the glory which 
thou gavest me I have given them ; that they 



54 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

may be one, even as we are one: I in them 
and thou in me, that they may be made perfect 
in one: and that the world may know that thou 
hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast 
loved me." 

Now ponder these wonderful words. His 
own glory — the glory that he received of the 
Father — the Master has given to his people; 
he has actually committed it to their keeping, 
and they are entrusted with it to-day, that 
they may be one. The great end is twofold : 
first, that they may be one ; and then, as a result 
of this oneness, that the "world may know" 
two things vital to its welfare — first, "that thou 
hast sent me," and then that "thou 'hast loved 
them as thou hast loved me." What is that 
glory? Whatever else it may be, it must 
include his honor as the Christ of God, his 
reputation and character as the Savior of men, 
the vindication of his authority as King of 
saints, and the full restoration of his Word to 
its rightful place as the supreme law of his 
entire Church to the end of time. Vastly 
more than this it doubtless includes, all that 
communicable grace and Christlikeness which 
is the fruit of the indwelling of the Comforter 
in the hearts of his people; but less than this 
it certainly can not imply. 



SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 55 

Here, then, is a mighty trust, which is at 
once an endowment of power ever growing, 
and the imposition of a duty ever expanding in 
its proportions and world-wide in its tremen- 
dous scope and its measureless consequences; 
and its first object is the unity of his churches 
and of his people, that they may be one. 

It is practically the impartation of the Christ 
himself to his people, to bring about this grand, 
godlike unity of his disciples in the coming 
ages, and therefore that coming unity is already 
a thing graciously assured. Then, through 
this unity, will come an overwhelming convic- 
tion in the mind and the conscience of the 
world, that the Church of Christ is really 
something more than a great company of 
fanatics, pretenders and enthusiasts; that, in 
very deed, the living God does love them, 
and that his power is upon them ; and in the 
light of this wonderful fact, the world will come 
to know that the Father sent the Son on his 
great mission and labor of love. 

And by far the greatest and most potent of 
all the mistakes of Christian people in this age, 
as in ages past, is the mistake of the ' ' twofold 
upstanding" or the cultivation of divisions, and 
the building up of sects and parties among 
themselves. Jesus prays "that they all may 



56 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

be one ; that the world may believe that thou 
hast sent me;" and the great apostle to the 
Gentiles writes: "Now I beseech you, brethren, 
by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
all speak the same thing, and that there be no 
divisions [margin, schisms'] among you ; but that 
you be perfectly joined together in the same 
mind and in the same judgment." And a little 
later he writes: "Now I beseech you, brethren, 
mark them which cause divisions [lit. , twofold up- 
standings, i. e., parties or sects] and offenses, 
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, 
and avoid them." And again still later he 
writes: "I, therefore, the prisoner of the 
Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the 
vocation wherewith ye are called, with all low- 
liness and meekness, with long-suffering, for- 
bearing one another in love; endeavoring to 
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of 
peace. There is one body [evidently meaning 
the Church, which he elsewhere calls the body 
of Christ], and one Spirit, even as ye are called 
in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one 
faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, 
who is above all, and through all, and in you 
all." And the same great apostle enumerates 
as a part of the "works of the flesh," "fac- 
tions, divisions, heresies" (margin, parties). 



SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 57 

and says: "That they which practice such 
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." 

Now I am sure that these words of our Lord, 
and of his apostle, do not mean cultivate ' ' a 
vigorous denominationalism. " No man can, by 
any ingenuity, torture them into the support of 
any such ism. Whitewash things as you will, 
yet the fact remains that a denomination is 
neither less nor more than a sect, and a sect is 
one of the "works of the flesh," not one of 
the " fruits of the Spirit, " Paul himself, taught 
by the Holy Spirit, being judge. And if those 
who are the getters-up of a sect "shall not 
inherit the kingdom of God," as inspiration 
declares, those who cherish existing sects, and 
who so constantly counsel the cultivation of a 
"vigorous denominationalism," can hardly be 
acting under the guidance of the Spirit of God. 
Wise men and very great "doctors" they may 
be, but in this matter they are strangely op- 
posed to Christ and to his Holy Word. 

But you will ask: "Are not the Baptists a 
sect?" I reply, first: If they are a sect, they 
are not of God ; and, second : So far as they 
may have imbibed the spirit of a sect, they are 
not approved of God; and, third: That they 
are not a sect at all, but true gospel churches. 
The broad line of demarkation between a sect 



58 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

and the " churches of Christ" is this: That the 
former has some peculiar characteristics of 
doctrine or of practice which it cherishes for 
its own sake, and which it will not submit to 
the test of the Divine Word, rigorously ap- 
plied, while the latter hold every one of their 
doctrines, and each one of their practices, at all 
times, subject to correction by that Word. The 
one seeks chiefly the honor of the Master by a 
strict conformity to his revealed will ; the other, 
the honor and growth of a party, by fidelity to 
its usages and traditions. Tested by these 
criteria the Baptist churches are not a sect, for 
with them the Word of God is at all times para- 
mount They willingly subject all their doctrines 
and usages to that supreme rule, and they are 
ever ready to renounce any doctrine, or custom, 
or practice, that may be condemned by it. 
Absolute conformity to the law of Christ in 
all things is their controlling desire. Not what 
is most convenient, or most popular, nor what 
their fathers did, but what the Lord Jesus re- 
quires, is the rule of their faith and of their 
practice. That they are alone in this, may 
seem to you a very bold and reckless state- 
ment, but, before you denounce it too se- 
verely, be so kind as to name some pedo- 
baptist denomination that holds the same 



SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 59 

attitude of entire subjection to the authority 
of Christ. 

Surely, those who openly and boldly claim 
that some way other than that which Christ 
commands will do equally well, or that anything 
that he has commanded is a matter of no im- 
portance, and may be innocently ignored or 
changed at pleasure, either do not accept the 
Word of Christ as the final word in their hearts, 
or they fail amazingly in obeying it in their 
lives. 

As a Baptist, therefore, I have a right to 
arraign the current sectarianism as the chief 
hindrance to that unity of Christ's people, which 
must precede the ingathering of the nations 
into his fold. 

Some years ago, while pastor in the city of 

M , I received a call from a very intelligent 

lady, a member of the Catholic Church in that 
place, who came to consult me about her 
spiritual interests. The Lord had already 
" opened her eyes to behold wondrous things 
out of his law" — and she was secretly, and yet 
tremblingly, hoping in Christ. " Being justi- 
fied by faith," she was "a, disciple of Jesus, 
but secretly, for fear of" the Romanists. In 
one of our interviews I asked her why it is that 
so few of our Roman Catholic neighbors come 



60 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

to a knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. 
Said I : ' ' Why is it that they do not read the 
Bible for themselves?" And this is substantially, 
and almost verbatim, her reply: "Many of 
them do begin to read the Bible, anxious to 
learn the truth, but their Catholic friends laugh 
at them. 'Look at the Protestant world,' 
say they ; ' do they not all take that Bible for 
their guide? And yet they are divided into a 
great number of sects, no two of which can 
agree about the meaning of that book. Can a 
book so hard to be understood be a revelation 
from God? And if its own best friends can 
not understand it alike, how can you hope to 
arrive at any definite knowledge of its true 
meaning? You are not wiser than all the rest 
of mankind, but you ought to be wise enough 
to let that old book alone, and believe firmly in 
the Holy Mother Church.' And in most 
cases," continued my informant, "the anxious, 
inquiring Catholic is persuaded to give up the 
study of the Bible, the sectarian divisions of 
the Protestants seeming to him a convincing 
proof that it can not be understood by any 
one, nor render any real service to those who 
earnestly desire to know the truth." 

That my informant told the truth, I can not 
doubt; and accepting her statements as an 



SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 6l 

honest, unvarnished description of the situa- 
tion, who can fail to see that Protestant secta- 
rianism is one of the strongest bulwarks of 
Romanism in every Protestant land. It is easy 
to say that it ought not to be so ; that earnest 
Romanists ought not to be influenced by such 
considerations to give up the study of God's 
Word; but that does not change the fact. 
They are usually in doubt whether, in very 
truth, it is God's Word, and the multiplicity of 
Protestant sects very naturally confirms that 
doubt, and leads them to abandon the exami- 
nation of a book, apparently so difficult to be 
understood. 

In much the same way multitudes of the 
world's people are led to neglect the Bible, by 
the endless divisions and the hopeless wrangles 
of its professed friends. Indeed, it is a fact, 
patent to all thoughtful observers, that the sec- 
tarian divisions and struggles of the professedly 
Christian world furnish to infidelity its most 
plausible excuses — nay, its most terrible and 
deadly weapons, impeaching at once the inspi- 
ration of the Bible and the saving power of the 
Gospel of Christ. 

Nor does the evil stop here. Sectarian dis- 
sensions impair the spirituality of the churches 
until, like Sampson shorn of his locks, they are 



62 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

almost powerless. At the same time they 
cause an unwise expenditure in the prosecution 
of the Lord's work, crowding thousands of 
small towns and villages with an excessive 
number of weak churches and half-starved min- 
isters, resulting in a fearful struggle for a mere 
existence that too often degenerates into a 
bitter rivalry, each with the other, and all of 
them with those who cater to the appetites and 
amusement of the public in the hope of gain. 
In the fierce conflict for an existence, churches 
whose sole aim should be the salvation of men, 
convert their places of worship into theaters, 
cook-shops and gambling dens, where the 
youth are initiated into the mysteries of relig- 
ious raffling and pious grab-bags. There, too, 
they are taught to stake money on bits of ring- 
cake, or to sell smiles and kisses, for the benefit 
of the church. 

This is no fancy sketch, but a mild picture 
of scenes actually occurring in this year of 
grace in hundreds of American communities. 

Good men of various sects may say, and 
many of them do say: "I care nothing for 
any sect; all churches are equally dear to me." 
Just now it is fashionable, in many quarters, for 
pious men to talk in that way. I have heard 
very many ministers talk in that way, but I 



SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 63 

have yet to meet the first one whose conduct 
agrees with such professions. In fact, a some- 
what extended and painful experience has 
taught me to look out sharply for the ministers 
who are so liberal — in words. They generally 
prove themselves shepherds who are in search 
of more sheep ; and if they chance to look for 
them in your fold, you need not be greatly 
surprised. 

If these things be true — and no man can 
disprove them — the only way to eradicate 
sectarianism is to destroy the sects whence it 
necessarily flows. Sectism must go, or secta- 
rianism will assuredly stay, and continue indefi- 
nitely its deadly work. 

How can sectism be banished from the 
Christian world? Not by force. That is 
always a failure. It has been tried a thousand 
years, and applied in a thousand ways, and all 
in vain. Men can not be coerced by fagot and 
sword into thinking alike. Persecution fortifies 
and multiplies sects. The more force, the less 
unity, is one of the great lessons of the past. 
Beside all that, it is an unscriptural and an 
unholy method, a daring usurpation of that 
authority which belongs to God alone, an act 
of tyranny which it is the duty of all men of 
every creed to resist to the utmost. No man, 



64 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

be he Pope or cardinal, bishop or priest, king 
or conqueror, has any right whatever to "lord 
it over God's heritage," or to even attempt to 
compel the consciences of men to assent to 
any dogma whatever, no matter how true or 
how important that dogma may be. Christ alone 
is king in the domain of conscience, and to 
him alone, is each human soul answerable for 
its want of faith, or its wrong faith, and its 
opinions, whether right or wrong. 

And the growing recognition of this fact en- 
courages us to hope that the days of ' ' bloody 
persecution " have passed away, never to return, 
at least in this favored land ; and that the sun 
of religious liberty has at last arisen, nevermore 
to suffer eclipse, or to sink beneath the horizon. 

But if sectism can not be put away by force, 
neither can it be cajoled into inaction by com- 
promises. This generation has witnessed re- 
peated attempts in this direction. Men of good 
. ~pute, of honest intent and vigorous thought, 
have cried out: "Away with creeds, and let us 
unite, no matter how diverse our doctrinal 
views, on this broad platform : Christian char- 
acter the only test of church membership;" 
and thousands have heeded the cry, and con- 
stituted churches on that basis. But those 
creedless churches have become at once a sect 



SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 6$ 

of the most stringent sort, with a creed all the 
more defective and unyielding because un- 
written, and with a membership so heterogene- 
ous that they can do little more than admire 
the "liberal," but impracticable platform on 
which their churches are constructed. 

And, in the nature of things, every such 
attempt to attain unity by sacrificing or ignoring 
truth, is a predestined failure. In its largest 
possible success, it merely brings together into 
one body all the divergent views and irrecon- 
cilable differences of the various sects, by which 
it is at once stricken as by an incurable moral 
paralysis. And it is well that it is so, for the 
unity that can be attained only by ignoring 
divine truth is always the unity of moral death. 
Better a vigorous sectism, fighting over dogmas 
supposed to embody important revealed truth, 
than the unity of total indifference to principles. 
A church that is in a constant dread of itself, 
that forever alternates between volcanic erup- 
tions and Arctic silence and death, is of little 
use to itself or to any one else, except to 
illustrate the folly and futility of seeking Chris- 
tian unity by the sacrifice of Christian principles. 

Now, my dear brother, since neither force 
nor compromises can put away sectism and 
secure that unity of Christ's people for which 



66 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

he so earnestly prays, there remains but one 
other method by which to seek a consummation 
so devoutly to be desired, and that is by in- 
culcating an honest and strict observance of the 
"Law of Christ" in all things — in doctrines, in 
ordinances and in the organization of churches. 

And this is, if you please, the Baptist plan 
— that is, the plan that they adhere to ; the old 
gospel plan that was successful in the primitive 
churches. Baptists did not invent it; they do 
not claim any peculiar right to it; but they 
have great confidence in it, and they have long 
proved their fidelity to it. They firmly believe 
there is no other way to attain to Christian 
unity and its blessed fruits but to make the 
Word of God, honestly and faithfully interpreted, 
the supreme rule of Christian faith and practice. 
That it is likely to prove a slow way, they 
concede; but though slow, it is sure, and 
sooner or later it must prove a success. 

And in this confidence, they remain firm in 
their loyalty to the Word of Christ, seeking 
thereby the overthrow of that sectarianism that 
is so hateful to all who deeply sympathize with 
our Lord in his desire that his people may be 
one, and so hurtful to souls and to all the 
interests of the churches of Christ. 

So, my dear brother, if I do not accept your 



SECTARIANISM A CURSE. 67 

kind invitation to return to my old church 
home, I trust you will do me the justice to 
attribute my conduct to those causes that 
dictate it. I desire the union of all Christians 
as earnestly as any one ; but I can not seek it 
by means that my judgment and conscience 
utterly condemn, and that I could not hope to 
justify to the Master. 

But you can come to the one gospel standard 
of doctrine and of duty as I came, and together 
we can labor hopefully for the unity of the 
Church. Yours, . 



68 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 



IV. 

TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. 



"In the multitude of counselors there is safety." 
— -Solomon. 

My Dear Brother: — Since the issue be- 
tween Baptists and pedobaptists involves great 
questions of Bible fact, it calls for a careful and 
thorough study of the language of that blessed 
book touching the matters which are so sharply 
controverted. Of course, such an exhaustive 
investigation of questions so broad and so many- 
sided is quite impossible within the limits of 
these friendly and informal letters. Nor is it 
necessary that we attempt a work so great, as 
if it were a task hitherto wholly neglected. It 
is a work on which multitudes — men of genius, 
learning and piety — have wrought with wonder- 
ful patience, ability and success in the ages 
past, and we have entered into their labors. 
They have accummulated vast stores of facts 
bearing directly or remotely on the general 



TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. 6g 

theme ; facts well-authenticated, which we may 
safely and wisely accept as indisputable, and 
which we may use with confidence in making 
up our judgment. Many of these facts have 
been established by men laboring in the inter- 
ests, not of any sect, or party, or religious usage, 
or custom, but of sound learning and a pure 
literature. These are the more trustworthy, 
because the results of an impartial study, and 
so evidently correct that they have long com- 
manded the full and unanimous assent of in- 
vestigators and educators of every sect in 
Christendom. 

Of course, it is not needful that any pre- 
liminary work, which has already been done so 
thoroughly and so ably, be done over again by 
us. The student of mathematics is not obliged 
by slow and laborious processes to verify the 
multiplication table. It is enough that he 
should learn the table, and acquire the necessary 
skill to use it properly. Even so in our Bible 
study those things that are thoroughly known, 
and universally accepted as unquestionably true 
by every one competent to judge, we may 
justly use as data on which to base our con- 
clusions in those matters of greater importance 
to which they stand related. And especially is 
this true in respect to that large class of facts, 



70 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

which, each and all, have been verified from 
age to age in the most thorough manner by- 
competent scholars. 

Acting in harmony with these plain and un- 
deniable facts, I intend not to inflict upon you 
any prosy, interminable discussion of facts 
already thoroughly established, but merely to 
call your attention to a series of such facts, and 
the witnesses by whom they are attested, in a 
way that makes any further debate about them 
altogether unnecessary, if not presumptuous. 
These facts are the raw material, if you please, 
out of which it is not difficult to construct the 
only true and tenable interpretation of the 
Scriptures on the subjects to which they relate. 
And first among these facts, both in the order 
of nature, and in its bearing on the issue before 
us, permit me to name this one — 

THE TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. 

You are well aware, my dear brother, that 
baptizo and its derivatives, which are used by 
our Lord and his apostles to indicate baptism, 
are Greek words. In that language, as you are 
also well aware, they have a well-defined mean- 
ing, and that meaning is their true sense in the 
Holy Scriptures. In the old English Bible they 
were translated by the word dip and its de- 



TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. 7 1 

rivatives. The readers of that Bible could not 
be in doubt respecting the act of baptism. As 
they read of "John the dipper," they could not 
fail to understand his words, ' ' I, indeed, dip 
you in water," nor could they fail to understand, 
how Jesus "was dipped of John into the 
Jordan. " And as they read, ' ' Go ye, therefore, 
and teach all nations, dipping them," etc., or 
those other words, "He that believeth and is 
dipped shall be saved," they could not have any 
rational doubt that the scriptural baptism is an 
immersion. But when that old Bible gave place 
to the authorized version of King James, there 
came a change. The Greek words for baptism 
were not translated, but simply transferred. 
And as sprinkling had already come into use in 
France, and in some other continental countries, 
and was daily growing in popularity among the 
English nobility as the favorite method of 
fashionable christening, the transferred words 
soon came to be used in a new and peculiar 
sense. For the christening, after it had ceased 
to be a dipping, was still called a baptism. In 
this way, by a gradual, but sure process, was 
coined the new English word, baptize, with a 
meaning altogether foreign to that of the old 
Greek word, being used to designate the 7 r ite of 
baptism without any reference to the method of 



72 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

it. Thus it became, and thus it remains to this 
day, a merely technical name for a religious or- 
dinance, which, as a matter of fact, has long 
been administered in multitudes of Protestant 
churches, in various ways, as fashion, taste, or 
mere caprice may demand. 

And this technical sense of this English word 
baptize is unconsciously or ignorantly attributed 
by the average reader to the transferred, angli- 
cized Greek word in the Scriptures, leading him 
to infer, most erroneously, that baptism is a 
religious ceremony, to be observed in any way 
to please the taste. And it is a fact not credit- 
able to our English Protestantism, that this 
palpable mistake is generally winked at, and 
often actively confirmed by men who, to speak 
with the utmost charity, ought to know better. 
Yet this deception, transparent and unwarrant- 
able as it is, constitutes one of the chief defenses 
of the practice of sprinkling. 

Now, my brother, it must be evident to you, 
and to every thoughtful person, that this tech- 
nical English word, baptize, which is not yet 
three hundred years old, ought not to be per- 
mitted to determine the meaning of the old 
Greek word used by our Lord and his apostles. 
That word they must have used, not in the 
sense of this modern English form of it, but in 



TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. 73 

its old, legitimate Greek sense ; in that sense in 
which it was then used and understood by their 
auditors, and by those who wrote and spoke 
the Greek language. For it is a rule in all lan- 
guages, and of universal application in all ages 
and among all classes of men, that the words 

OF A WRITER OR SPEAKER ARE TO BE TAKEN IN 
THE SENSE CURRENT AT THE TIME WHEN THEY 
WERE USED, AND AMONG THE PEOPLE TO WHOM 

they were addressed. This rule is so obvi- 
ously just that it needs no defense, and so plain 
that it requires no explanation . And it is equally 
indispensable in every department of human 
thought and investigation. The jurist applies 
it in determining the meaning of the constitu- 
tion and the laws; the historian applies it in 
deciding the facts of history ; the scientist rests 
upon it in exploring the scientific lore of the 
ages past; the linguist relies upon it in the 
study of the languages; the court depends 
upon it in construing the wills of the dead, and 
the contracts, agreements and obligations of 
the living. And unless we regard it in the 
study of the Bible, we might as well close the 
sacred volume at once, for its just interpreta- 
tion will be forever impossible. For, although 
it is the Word of God, it is given to us in the 
language of men, in the terms and subject to 



74 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

the laws of human language, and only by- 
means of a just application of those laws can 
we know definitely its true meaning. Many 
good people ignore this plain truth in their 
treatment of the Scriptures, telling us that the 
Word of God is spiritual, that we are to seek 
its inner, spiritual sense, and that only not, by 
the application of any rules of interpretation, 
good or bad, but by prayer and a reverent 
contemplation. 

It is very true that the Bible treats of spirit- 
ual things, and that a reverent, prayerful spirit 
is indispensable to a right study of it ; but it is 
also true that it treats of those spiritual verities 
and duties in the terms of human speech, and 
in accordance with the recognized laws of 
such speech. And only as we apply those 
laws in its interpretation, by means of a sanc- 
tified common sense, can we unlock the treas- 
ures stored in its pages, and attain with 
certainty the Truth of God, rather than the 
dreams of a pious but imperfect heart, led 
astray by the creations of a devout but erring 
imagination. 

If we would know what baptism really is, 
. what is the action that constitutes it, we must 
seek such knowledge by the careful study of 
the words of our Lord in commanding it as 



TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. ?$ 

they were understood in that age, and by the 
people of whose language they were a familiar, 
well-known part. The question is not, What 
does the word baptize mean in London, or in 
New York, in the year 1885? but What did it 
mean among the Greeks in Athens, in Alexan- 
dria, in Jerusalem, in the days of our Lord and 
of his apostles? For its ancient Greek meaning 
is, undeniably, its true sense in the Holy 
Scriptures. 

How, then, shall we ascertain that meaning? 
When we desire to learn the true sense of an 
English word, we do not usually attempt to 
trace its use throughout the entire body of 
English literature. Life is too short, and time 
too precious for that, but we turn to an English 
dictionary or lexicon, and in a moment we are 
satisfied. In our standard English dictionaries 
we recognize a full and competent authority on 
the sense of English words. They are care- 
fully compiled by competent scholars, who 
have made the study of our language the work 
of their lives, giving us the benefit of their 
laborious investigations in a compact and con- 
venient form. We place them in our homes 
and in our schools, depending upon them our- 
selves, and encouraging our children to consult 
them as authoritative exponents of our mother 
tongue. 



j6 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

We have also dictionaries or lexicons of the 
Greek language, giving the meaning of Greek 
words in plain English. They have been pre- 
pared by eminent Greek scholars, with great 
care and immense labor. They have the in- 
dorsement of the learned world, and they are 
in constant use in our higher institutions of 
learning. 

Take the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell 
and Scott. Its compilers belong to the Church 
of England, but its admirers and indorsers 
belong to all churches, including men of all 
creeds and men of no creed. In all the col- 
leges of all denominations in England and in 
America it is deservedly held in the highest 
estimation. 

Of this great work a new edition (the seventh) 
has lately been issued, and in it we have the 
following : 

Baptizo — To dip in or under water; to sink, 
to bathe, to baptize. 

Baptismos — A dipping in water — baptism. 

Baptisma — Baptism. 

Baptistes — One that dips — a baptizer. 

And with these definitions there is a sub- 
stantial agreement among all lexicographers. 
Sophocles, Donnegan, Rost and Palm, Park- 
hurst, Stephanus, Robinson, Wright, Schleus- 



TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. ^ 

ner, Dunbar, Leigh, Schrevelius, Scapula, 
Bass, Suidas, Morel, Laing, Hederic, Green- 
field, Ewing, Jones, Schcettgen, T. S. Green, 
Suicer, Mintert, Pasor, Grove, Bretschneider, 
Stokius, Robertson, Passow, Schwarzius, Al- 
stedius, Pickering, Rouma, Gazes, Bagster and 
Sons, Anthon, Grimm and Cremer — all these 
say substantially the same thing, defining bap- 
tizo by dip, plunge, immerse or submerge. In 
the language of Moses Stuart, we may justly 
say: "All critics and lexicographers of any 
note are agreed in this." Here, then, are 
more than forty thoroughly competent wit- 
nesses; men who voice the judgment, and 
enjoy the hearty indorsement of the entire 
learned world ; men who can not be accused of 
any partiality for the views of Baptists; men 
whose testimony is embodied in great standard 
works — at least three of them — Grimm, Cremer 
and Bagster, on New Testament Greek, and 
they all, with one accord, assure us that baptizo 
means to dip> to immerse. Now what shall we 
do with this great mass of evidence? If we 
reject it, the scholarship of the world will laugh 
at us, and deem us ignorant and very con- 
ceited; but if we accept it, then we must 
admit that, after all, "the Baptists are right." 
Doubtless this sounds very strange to you, for 



78 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

you have probably long been accustomed to 
think of the Baptists as an ignorant set, having 
little more than a superstitious regard for mere 
forms, to justify their tenacious adherence to 
their peculiar doctrines and usages. But, 
though it may seem strange, it is yet true, that 
the scholarship of the Christian world indorses 
the correctness of the Baptist views of baptism. 
The truth is, the ignorance and superstition in 
this matter are on the other side. Our pedobap- 
tist friends are, in these things, ivalking in 
darkness, and fighting the light. They are 
practically opposing the highest scholarship of 
Christendom, as well as the explicit command 
of our Lord, and all this for the sake of usages 
having their origin in the rankest superstition, 
and in times of great ignorance. 

Now, when you remember that the words 
baptize, baptizing, baptized and baptism are not 
translations of the Greek words, but those 
words themselves transferred, and changed in 
their terminal letters, and that their meaning in 
the Greek of the New Testament is to dip, to 
immerse, to bathe, as all the lexicons tell us, the 
conclusion is inevitable that our Lord commands 
immersion. 

And since he uses always a Greek word that 
means to immerse, one would naturally expect 



TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. 79 

to find it translated by immerse. No man has 
ever yet dared to translate it to pour, to sprinkle 
or to purify. No set of men dare to print our 
Lord's command (Matt, xxviii. 19): "Go ye 
therefore, and teach all nations, sprinkling 
them, or pouring them or purifying them." 
Every pedobaptist scholar in the world would 
protest against that as both wrong and absurd. 
But how much better is it to transfer the Greek 
word, instead of translating it, and then pretend 
that no one can tell what it means, and, under 
cover of that thin, false pretense, go on sprink- 
ling in the name of Christ. Is this the candor 
and fair dealing which the world has a right to 
expect from those who claim reverence and 
respect as the disciples of the sinless One? Is 
this double-dealing in sacred things the best 
way to commend Christianity to honorable 
men? I would not be too severe upon the 
translators of our common version. They 
were in a trying situation. The mandate of a 
drunken king, who knew how to enforce his 
decrees by cruel and swift punishments, in a 
manner compelled them to make the transfer. 
And back of that royal mandate was the 
demand of a proud, arrogant nobility for a 
convenient, tasty christening — one that would 
admit of a full display of the rich robes of their 



80 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

noble babes. The pressure upon those rever- 
end men was tremendous, and their address to 
the king, still printed in English editions of 
their version, shows that they were not the 
sort of men to endure martyrdom for the truth. 

But why should this age perpetuate the great 
wrong which they were, in a manner, com- 
pelled to originate? Why not translate the 
word honestly and faithfully? Its meaning is 
plain and definite, quite as plain and definite as 
that of any other word in the entire Greek 
Testament, and there is absolutely no room for 
an intelligent, reasonable doubt about it among 
thorough biblical scholars. Why, then, is it 
not translated? Only one true reason can be 
assigned, and that is, that any possible transla- 
tion would be fatal to sprinkling. 

Let one illustration of this fact suffice : A 

few years since I asked the Rev. Dr. M.- , 

an eminent pedobaptist scholar, why it was 
that he resigned his place on the Committee of 
Translation of the American Bible Union. 

He replied : • 'When I saw that the committee 
were determined to translate baptizo I resigned, 
because I did not deem it expedient to translate 
that word, though, if it must be translated, im- 
merse is the proper word by which to render it. " 

We hear much about the wickedness of the 



TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. 8 1 

Papacy in withholding the Word of God from 
the people, and it is a very grievous wrong; 
but what shall be said of those Protestants 
who, by a defective translation, purposely 
obscure the Word of God, that they may per- 
petuate the practice of a mere invention of 
men in his name, in direct contravention of his 
will? I would not be uncharitable, but if it be 
not an unpardonable offense, I would suggest 
that it will be time enough to condemn Rome, 
when her accusers have given up the practice 
of unscriptural Romish innovations and have 
given to the people an honest and complete 
translation of the Divine Word. The com- 
pliant weakness of King James' translators, re- 
sulting as it did in a mutilated Bible, has 
robbed English-speaking people of a clear 
statement of an important part of the law of 
Christ for nearly three hundred years. 

And this fearful robbery has been recently 
perpetuated in the Canterbury Revision, other- 
wise so valuable, against evident light and 
knowledge, through bondage to usage, and to 
sectarian interests. Why did not the Canter- 
bury revisers translate baptizo ? Is it possible 
they could not discover its meaning? All in- 
telligent people know better than that. Besides, 
the American Committee have put on record 
6 



82 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

evidence that they do know the meaning of the 
word. For they desired that it should be ren- 
dered bathe in Mark vii. 4, and in Luke xi. 38. 
But if it means bathe, in the sense of to 
immerse, in those places, as undeniably it 
does, then beyond any doubt it means the 
same in Matt, xxviii. 19, and in Mark xvi. 16. 

Why, then, is it silently transferred in those 
places where it relates directly to the ordinance 
of baptism? Why is this obscurity deliber- 
ately, wantonly perpetuated in the Canterbury 
Revision? Only one answer is possible, and 
that is, that sprinkling may still be perpetuated 
under the plea of indefiniteness in the command. 

My brother, what will you do with the lexi- 
cons? I can not return to you until they are 
disposed of. Are they incorrect? But why, 
then, are they accepted and honored in all 
pedobaptist institutions of learning? Why are 
they put into the hands of students by learned 
professors of the Greek language and literature, 
as faithful exponents of the true meaning of 
Greek words? 

And if they are to be trusted in translating 
the Greek of Homer, why not in translating 
the Greek of the New Testament? I am sure 
you will admit there is but- one honest, honora- 
ble answer. They are correct and authorita- 



TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. 83 

tive, and just as much so in translating the 
Scriptures as in translating the "Iliad" or the 
1 ' Odyssey " or the ' ' Orations of Demosthenes. " 
If I were to say, ' ' The lexicons are false, and 
therefore I will resume sprinkling," the entire 
learned world, pedobaptist scholars included, 
would laugh at me, and say many uncompli- 
mentary things of me. To be honest about it, 
you know, and so do all scholars, that the lex- 
icons are right about this matter. 

Here, then, is the dilemma into which the 
lexicons put us. If we accept their testimony 
as true, we must confess that Christ has 
actually and explicitly made immersion an im- 
perative Christian duty; that his command to 
baptize is a definite, plain command to immerse, 
and that immersion only is baptism ; but if we 
reject their testimony, we will merit and 
receive the condemnation of the entire learned 
world. 

This dilemma shuts me up where I am — 
compels me to remain a Baptist. I am not 
exactly a coward, but I am not equal to an 
onslaught upon these strong citadels. And I 
am afraid that an army of the most learned 
men in the world, in an attack upon the lexi- 
cons, would suffer an inglorious defeat. If it 
were only a Pope, or a Council, or a comet, 



84 BEFORE THE F30T-LIGHTS. 

one might hope for an ultimate victory. The 
world would march away and forget the two 
former bodies while the latter would fly off into 
the abysses of space, and perhaps forget the 
world. But these lexicons, here they are and 
they are here to stay, and all the world, con- 
federate for their overthrow, can not effect it in 
twice ten thousand years. Their impregnable 
defense is their truthfulness. 

It seems a little curious, but the same 
dilemma that compels me to stay where I am, 
ought to compel you to come and keep me 
company ; and yet you do not come. Perhaps 
it has not yet got hold of you ; but unless you 
do some artful dodging, it will catch you 
presently. 

Some evade its grip for a time by an ingen- 
ious device. They say: "Oh, well; it may be 
very true that baptizo commonly means to 
immerse, but then it may not mean just that 
always. Perhaps it may sometimes mean 
something else, and if so, perhaps it means 
something else in the Scriptures" And so they 
manage to hang on to that perhaps, but they 
find it a very uncomfortable situation, and they 
are all the time in danger of being sadly humil- 
iated by some crushing mishap. 

This device, though ingenious, is not very 



TESTIMONY OF THE LEXICONS. 85 

ingenuous, and to those who love the truth it is 
very unsafe. For if it were even true that 
baptizo does sometimes mean something other 
than to dip or immerse, we would have no 
right to understand it in that unusual and ex- 
ceptional sense in the New Testament Scrip- 
tures, unless we could prove that its usual sense is 
there impossible. For it is a fundamental rule 
in the interpretation of any writing or speech, 

that THE WORDS EMPLOYED IN SUCH WRITING OR 
SPEECH ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THEIR USUAL 
SENSE, UNLESS SOMETHING IN THE SUBJECT ITSELF, 
OR IN THE CONTEXT, IMPERATIVELY REQUIRES 
THAT THEY BE TAKEN IN SOME OTHER SENSE. 

This rule is too evidently true and just, to 
need a word of defense. It is undeniably 
correct, and of universal application. Now 
suppose for one moment that baptizo means to 
immerse only seven times in each ten, that the 
other three times in each ten it means to 
sprinkle. Then by our rule, just cited, we 
must understand it to mean immerse in every 
case where it is not evident -that it can not mean 
that; and we could understand it to mean 
sprinkle only in such cases as that the sense to 
immerse would be evidently forced and untrue. 

In our dispute with Universalists we all use 
this rule freely, holding them to the usual 



86 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

sense of aidnios — everlasting, eternal, — and we 
are fully warranted in so doing. Indeed, the 
rule we are considering requires us to do so, as 
the only means of determining the true sense 
of the passage. 

But if the rule be operative against the Uni- 
versalist, why is it not operative against the 
pedobaptist? Surely, you ought yourself to 
observe a rule of interpretation which you 
rigidly enforce against others. But the moment 
you consent to do that, you establish immer- 
sion as the scriptural act of baptism, beyond 
any decent peradventure. That great Ameri- 
can statesman, Henry Clay, said: "I would 
rather be right than be President." Is it too 
much to expect you to say, "I -would rather 
be right than be a pedobaptist"? If that be 
your noble purpose, I shall anticipate your 
speedy arrival in the Baptist camp. At all 
events, a similar purpose landed me here, and 
persistently keeps me here. If I am tempted 
to arise and return to the pedobaptist fold, I 
am instantly confronted by the great army of 
Greek lexicographers, telling me, with one 
voice, that immersion alone is baptism; and in 
the face of this great array of witnesses, I dare 
not substitute sprinkling for the baptism Christ 
commands us to perform. Dare you ? 

Fraternally yours, * 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 8? 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST 
WRITERS. 



" Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the 
things which I say?" — Jesus. 

My Dear Brother : — If you find some parts 
of this letter rather dull reading, please do not 
skip them, for they are the words of good, 
solid, old pedobaptist saints. It is true, they 
are giving rather unpalatable evidence, and 
they do it reluctantly ; but you know that tes- 
timony extorted from an unwilling witness, by 
the force of truth alone, is always valuable. 
And if it tends to establish some fact or propo- 
sition in any degree inimical to the known 
wishes, feelings, practices or interests of the 
witness, that fact greatly enhances its value. 
And of this nature are the concessions of many 
eminent pedobaptist divines, scholars and his- 
torians concerning baptism. They are contrary 
to the general views and practices of the writers 



88 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

and of their churches. No one can account 
for them except on the ground of a moral 
necessity — that they are required by the facts, 
and that their authors, being conscientious, 
truthful men, could not say less. And this 
fact assures us also that these reluctant conces- 
sions are not overdrawn. We may safely con- 
clude that each one of these interested and 
intelligent witnesses, testifying against himself, 
will say no more than the truth fairly obliges 
him to say. The danger lies in a direction 
exactly opposite — that he will say far less than 
he ought to say, since even good men are not 
prone to tread too heavily on their own prec- 
ious corns. If they must condemn their own 
opinions or practices in any respect, even saints 
will usually do it as gently and as sparingly as 
possible, having a tender and wholesome regard 
for their own feelings. 

Here are two men, both good men, both 
pious and truthful, one a Baptist and the other 
a Presbyterian, and we summon them as wit- 
nesses respecting baptism. We ask the first 
one whether the Greek for baptism means to 
immerse, and he says it does. But instinctively 
we discount his testimony somewhat, thinking 
more or less definitely: " He is a Baptist, and 
perhaps he is swayed in some degree by preju- 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 89 

dice or self-interest or pride of opinion or de- 
nominational feeling. He is an interested 
witness, and his testimony favors his own side. 
It may be that his desire to have it so influ- 
ences his judgment unduly, so that he is not a 
safe judge in the matter, and we must weigh 
his evidence with great caution." Then we 
turn to the second man, propose the same 
question, and receive the same answer. But 
we are naturally — well, inevitably — far more 
impressed by it. We say: "This man is a 
Presbyterian. We know from his practice of 
sprinkling that he does not desire to promote 
immersion. All his prejudices, interests and 
denominational feelings are opposed to it. 
Yet he has deliberately given us an answer that 
condemns his own practice and vindicates that 
of the Baptist. Why has he done this? It 
must be for the simple reason that, as an 
honest man, he could not do otherwise. He 
agrees with the Baptist, not because he wants 
to, but because the truth compels him to do 
so, even against all his own interests, preju- 
dices and preferences." And we are com- 
pelled to accept his testimony, and allow it 
great weight. And it is evidently of great 
value to every one who desires to know the 
truth, for it is given, not under any constraint, 



gO BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

but freely; not from self-interest, but against 
it; not at the dictation of party spirit, but 
against it; not at the behest of prejudice, but 
against it; not to inflate denominational pride, 
but inevitably to humiliate it. 

Now, my brother, it will not do to say that 
the continued practice of sprinkling by this 
Presbyterian witness neutralizes his testimony 
against it, for that is manifestly untrue. The 
practice is continued on other grounds — usually 
on the plea that it is "a. matter of indifference, " 
that sprinkling "will do as well," and a great 
many other similar pleas. 

But the testimony which a -man gives con- 
demning his own practice is one thing, and the 
plea by which he may seek to justify that prac- 
tice in spite of that adverse testimony is quite 
another thing; and each one must be judged 
on its own merits. The testimony which an 
intelligent man gives against himself is very 
certain to be found true, while the plea by 
which he seeks to excuse himself for continu- 
ing to do the thing condemned, is very apt to 
prove a mere make-shift, to avoid a disagree- 
able change of practice and of ecclesiastical 
relations. 

If I admit that Christ commands me to 
immerse, I am bound to immerse; but if I 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 9 1 

nevertheless continue to sprinkle, and seek to 
justify myself by the plea that it is a matter of 
indifference, or that sprinkling will do just as 
well, my plea assumes the truth of my admis- 
sion. Whether the plea is a valid one, is quite 
another matter. Of that every man must 
judge for himself. It assumes either that obe- 
dience to the known command of Christ is a 
matter of indifference, or that men are compe- 
tent to revise and improve his mandates, and 
are at liberty to do so at their own pleasure. 
Such assumptions are very daring at the best, 
and those that act upon them are very bold. 
Those who are tempted to do so will do well to 
remember that to * 'obey is better than sacrifice. " 
For my own part, while I am not ' ' righteous 
overmuch," I deem it more pleasant and agree- 
able, as well as wiser and safer, to obey the 
Master. He knows what is best for us in this 
matter, as in everything else, and his great love 
for us, coupled with his matchless wisdom, 
fairly challenges compliance with his slightest 
wish. But when we remember that this dear 
friend is also our Divine King, and that he has 
embodied his wish in a positive command, it 
seems almost incredible that any one, calling 
himself a citizen of his kingdom, should for 
one moment presume to disregard his known 



92 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

will. But if any choose to do a thing so 
daring and unnatural, they must take all the 
risk of it, nor wonder if to me and to many 
more the humbler and narrower path of obedi- 
ence seems the more inviting, the wiser and 
the safer. For those who think differently, 
and whose testimony on this subject condemns 
their practice, I have no word of reproach. I 
am not their judge. To their own Master they 
must stand or fall. Their example I view as a 
dangerous mistake ; but their testimony against 
their own practices I gratefully accept as a val- 
uable, though reluctant, tribute to the truth. 
Such witnesses are very numerous, and their 
numbers are constantly and rapidly increasing. 
In these letters I place before you many deci- 
sive testimonies from different writers, all of 
them men of conceded ability, men eminent 
for learning, men of reputed piety, and each 
one of them undeniably a thoroughly compe- 
tent witness against his own practice and 
against the practice of his Church. 

Among them are leading church .historians, 
great reformers, eminent expositors, noted 
bishops, eloquent preachers, profound theolog- 
ians, and famous scholars and writers. They 
are representative men, belonging to nearly 
every pedobaptist sect of any prominence in 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 93 

Christendom. In the list are Catholics and 
Lutherans, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, 
Reformed and Remonstrants, Methodists and 
Congregationalists. They are of many nation- 
alities, English and German, Scotch and Swiss, 
French, Italian and American. 

And this great variety of position and work, 
of denominational relation and preference, and 
of nativity and language, is a matter of much 
importance, lifting their testimonies above the 
suspicion of any taint of local influence. 

Yet, despite all their diversities of creed and 
of tongue, their testimony to the truth is char- 
acterized by a beautiful and convincing unity 
that can hardly fail to impress you as conclu- 
sive. Take first some of the 

TESTIMONIES OF EMINENT PEDOBAPTIST 
HISTORIANS. 

Mosheim — Church History, First Century. — 
"The sacrament of baptism was administered 
in this century, without the public assem- 
blies, in places appointed and prepared for that 
purpose, and was performed by an immersion 
of the whole body in the baptismal font." Of 
baptism in the second century he says : ' 'The 
persons that were to be baptized, after they had 
repeated the creed, confessed and renounced 
their sins, and particularly the devil and his 
pompous allurements, were immersed under 



94 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

water, and received into Christ's kingdom." 
I quote from McLaine's translation, Vol. I-.., 
pages 126 and 206. Mosheim was an eminent 
Lutheran scholar and divine, Chancellor and 
Professor of Theology in the University of Got- 
tingen. His translator, Dr. McLaine, was an 
eminent pedobaptist clergyman. 

Neander — Church Hist. — "In respect to the 
form of baptism, it was, in conformity with the 
original institution and the original import of the 
symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of 
entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being 
entirely penetrated by the same." In his His- 
tory of the Planting and Training of the Churchy 
the same writer says: "Baptism was originally 
administered by immersion, and many of the 
comparisons of Paul allude to this form of ad- 
ministration." 

In an appendix to Judd 's Review of Stuart is 
a note from Neander, in which he says : 

"As to your question on the original rite of 
baptism, there can be no doubt whatever that, 
in the primitive times, the ceremony was per- 
formed by immersion, to signify a co7nplete im- 
mersion into the new principle of life divine, 
which was to be imparted by the Messiah. 
When Paul says that through baptism we are 
buried with Christ, and rise again with him, he 
unquestionably alludes to the symbol of dipping 
into, and rising again out of, the water. The 
practice of immersion in the first century was, 
bevond all doubt, -brew? lent in the vibrio C!hitrrh t if 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 95 

Neander has probably no superior as a Chris- 
tian scholar and historian. The single fact that 
he was a Professor of Theology in the Univer- 
sity of Berlin thirty-eight years attests his learn : 
ing and his competency as a witness. 

Augusti — Archceology. — "Immersion in water 
was general until the thirteenth century among 
the Latins. It was then displaced by sprink- 
ling, but retained by the Greeks." 

Augusti was an eminent Lutheran scholar, 
Professor in the University of Bonn, a thor- 
oughly competent witness. 

Gieseler — Church Hist. — ' 'For the sake of the 
sick the rite of sprinkling was introduced/' 

Dr. Gieseler was a Lutheran, Professor in 
the University of Bonn. 

Kurtz — Church Hist. — "Baptism was admin- 
istered by complete immersion." 

Dr. Kurtz, a Professor in the University of 
Dorpat, is a trustworthy Lutheran witness. 

Van Collen — Hist, of Doctrines. — "Immer- 
sion in water was general until the thirteenth 
century." 

Winer — Christian Antiquities. — "Affusion was 
at first applied only to the sick, but was grad- 
ually introduced for others after the seventh 
century, and in the thirteenth became the prevail- 
ing practice in the West." 

Who can refute these Lutheran historians? 



g6 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

Dr. Brenner — Hist Bapt, — "Thirteen hun- 
drcd years was baptism generally .... 
performed by the immersion of the person under 
water \ and only in extraordinary cases was 
sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter 
methods of baptism were called in question, 
and even prohibited." 

Bower — Hist, of Popes. — "Baptism by im- 
mersion was, undoubtedly, the apostolical prac- 
tice, and was never dispensed with by the 
Church except in cases of sickness." 

Bishop Bossuet — Stennet ad Russen. — "We are 
able to make it appear, by the acts of Councils, 
and by ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred 
years baptism was thus administered (by immer- 
sion) throughout the whole Church, as far as 
possible." 

Stackhouse — History Bible. — "We nowhere 
read in the Scripture of any one being baptized 
but by immersion, and several authors have 
proved, from the acts of Councils and ancient 
rituals, that this manner of immersion continued, 
as much as possible, to be used for thirteen 
hundred years after Christ." 

Dr. Schaff — Hist. Apostolic Chwch, — "Im- 
mersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestion- 
ably the original, normal form. This is shown 
by the very meaning of the Greek words bap- 
tizo, baptisma, and the analogy of the baptism 
of John, which was performed in the Jordan 
{en), Matt. iii. 6; compare with 16; also eis to 
Jordanen (into the Jordan), Mark i. 9. Fur- 
thermore by the New Testament comparisons 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 97 

of baptism with the passage through the Red 
Sea (1 Cor. x. 2); with the flood (1 Pet. iii. 21): 
with a bath (Eph. v. 26, Titus iii. 5); with a 
burial and resurrection (Rom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 
12); and, finally, by the general usage of eccle- 
siastical antiquity, which was always immersion, 
as it is to this day in the Oriental and also in 
the Graeco-Russian Churches, pouring and 
sprinkling being substituted only in cases of 
urgent necessity, such as sickness and ap- 
proaching death." 

Dr. Schaff is a Presbyterian, and one of the 
most eminent of the scholars and the writers 
of this age. He is a thoroughly competent 
witness, and his testimony is worthy the 
careful study of every lover of the truth. 

Venema — Eccles. Hist. — "It is without con- 
troversy that baptism, in the primitive Church, 
was administered by immersion into water, and 
not by sprinkling, seeing that John is said to 
have baptized in Jordan, and where there was 
much water, as Christ also did, by his disciples, 
in the neighborhood of those places. Philip, 
going down into the water, baptized the 
eunuch." 

Hagenbach — Hist. Christian Church. — "That 
baptism, in the beginning, was administered in 
the open air, in rivers and pools, or that it was 
by immersion, we know from the narratives in 
the New Testament. In later times there were 
prepared great baptismal fonts or chapels. 

7 



98 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

The person to be baptized descended several 
steps into the reservoir of water, and then the 
whole body was immersed under the water" 

Waddington— Church Hist. — ' ' Th e sacra- 
ments of the primitive Church were two — that 
of baptism and the Lord's Supper. The cere- 
mony of immersion, the oldest form of baptism, 
was performed in the name of the three persons 
of the Trinity. ' ' 

Coleman — Ancient Hist. — "In the primitive 
Church immersion was undeniably the common 
mode of baptism. This fact is so well estab- 
lished that it were needless to adduce authori- 
ties in proof of it. It is a great mistake to 
suppose that baptism by immersion was discon- 
tinued when infant baptism became generally 
prevalent. The practice of immersion contin- 
ued even unto the thirteenth or fourteenth century. 
Indeed, it has never been formally abandoned, 
but is still the mode of administering infant 
baptism in the Greek Church and in several 
other Churches." 

Dr. Wall — Hist. Infant B apt. — "This (im- 
mersion) is so plain and clear by an infinite 
number of passages, that one can not but pity the 
zvcak endeavors of such pedobaptists as ivould 
maintain the negative of it. So we ought to 
disown and show a dislike of the profane scoffs 
which some people give to the English anti- 
pedobaptists, merely for the use of • dipping, 
when it was, in all probability, the way by 
Which our blessed Savior, and for certain was 
the most usual and ordinary way by which the 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 99 

ancient Christians, did receive their baptism. 
It is a great want of prudence, as well as of 
honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary 
what is certainly true, and may be proved so. 
It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one 
says. The custom of the Christians in the 
near succeeding times (to the apostles), being 
more largely and particularly delivered in 
books, is known to have been generally or or- 
dinarily a total immersion. 

' ' France seems to have been the first coun- 
try in the world where baptism by affusion was 
used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the 
public way of administering it. It being 
allowed (in England) to weak children (though 
strong enough to be brought to Christ) to be 
baptized by affusion, many ladies and gentle- 
men first, and then by degrees the common 
people, would obtain the favor of the priest to 
have their children pass for weak children, too 
tender to endure dipping in water; especially 
(as Mr. Walker observes) if some instances 
really were, or were but fancied or framed, of 
some child taking hurt by it. And another 
thing that had a greater influence than this was 
that many of our English divines and other 
people had, during Queen Mary's bloody reign 
(from 1553 to 1558), fled to Germany, Switzer- 
land, etc., and, coming back in Queen Eliza- 
beth's time, they brought with them a great 
love to the customs of those Protestant Churches 
wherein they had sojourned ; and especially the 
authority of Calvin, and the rules he had es- 
tablished at Geneva, had a miehtv influence on 



100 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

a great number of our people about that time. 
Now Calvin had not only given his dictum in 
his Institutes that the difference is of no 
moment whether he that is baptized be dipped 
all over, and if so, whether thrice or once, or 
whether he be only wetted with the water 
poured on him, but he had also drawn up for 
the use of his church at Geneva (and afterward 
published to the world), a form of administer- 
ing the sacraments, where, when he comes to 
order the act of baptizing, he words it thus: 
' Then the minister of baptism pours water on 
the infant, saying, I baptize thee,' etc. There 
had been, as I said, some Synods in some dio- 
ceses in France that had spoken of affusion 
without mentioning immersion at all, that 
being the common practice ; but for an office of 
liturgy of any church, this is, I believe, the 
first in the world that prescribes affusion 
absolutely. 

"This General Assembly (Westminster, 
1643), could not remember that fonts to be 
baptized in had been always used by the primi- 
tive Christians long before the beginning of 
Popery, and ever since churches were built; 
but that sprinkling, for the common use of 
baptizing, was really introduced (in France 
first, and then in the Popish countries) in times 
of Popery; and that accordingly all those coun- 
tries in which the usurped power of the Pope 
is, or has been formerly owned, have left off 
dipping of children in the font, but that all 
other countries in the world (which had never 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 10 1 

regarded his authority) do still use it ; and that 
basins, except in cases of necessity, were never 
used by Papists, nor any other Christians what- 
soever, till by themselves. . . .So paral- 
lel to the rest of their reformation, they re- 
formed the font into a basing 

Bishop Smith — Hist. Bapt. — "We have only 
to go back six or eight hundred years, and im- 
mersion was the only mode, except in the case of 
the few baptized on their beds at the real or 
supposed approach of death. . . . Im- 
mersion was not only universal six or eight 
hundred years ago, but it was primitive and 
apostolic. . . . The bowl and sprinkling 
are strictly Genevan in their origin; that is, 
they were introduced by Calvin at Geneva." 

Dr. Geo. Gregory — Hist. Church. — "The 
initiatory right of baptism (in the first century) 
was publicly performed by immersing the 
whole body." 

Bingham — Origines — "As this (dipping) was 
the original, apostolical practice so it continued 
the universal practice of the Church for many 
ages." 

Dr. Cave. — Primitive Christianity. — ' ' The 
party to be baptized was wholly immersed, or 
put under water, whereby they did more 
notably and significantly express the three 
great ends and effects of baptism." 

Magdeburg Cent. — "They (the apostles) 
baptized only adults. As to the baptism of 
infants, we have no example. As to the 
manner of baptizing, it was by dipping or 
plunging into the water." 



102 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHJTS. 

Dr. Geo. Christian Knapp — Christian The- 
ology. — " To baptisma from baptizein, which 
properly signifies to immerse (like the German 
Taufen) to dip in, to wash, (by immersion). 
Immersion is peculiarly agreeable to the insti- 
tution of Christ and to the practice of the 
Apostolical Church, and so even John bap- 
tized, and immersion remained common a long 
time after ; except that in the third century, or 
perhaps earlier, the baptism of the sick {bap- 
tisma clinicorum) was performed by sprinkling 
or affusion. Still, some would not acknowl- 
edge this to be true baptism, and controversy 
arose concerning it, so unheard of was it at 
that time to baptize by simple affusion. Cyprian 
first defended baptism by sprinkling, when ne- 
cessity called for it, but cautiously and with 
much limitation. By degrees, however, this 
mode of baptism became more customary, 
probably because it was found more conveni- 
ent. Especially was this the case after the 
seventh century and in the Western Church, 
but it did. not become universal until the com- 
mencement of the fourteenth century." 

This witness was one of the most popular of 
modern Lutheran theologians. His Lectures on 
Theology, from which I copy this passage, was 
translated by Dr. Leonard Woods, Jr., Presi- 
dent of Bowdoin College. Twelve years ago,. 
the work had reached the twentieth edition. 

Dr. Whitby. — " Immersion was religiously 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. IOJ 

observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, 
and was approved by the Church of England. 
And since the change of it into sprinkling was 
made without any allowance from the Author of 
the institution, or any license from any Council 
of the Church (of England), being that which 
the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of 
the cup to the laity, it were to be wished that 
this custom (immersion) might be again of 
general use." 

Dr. Whitby belonged to the Church of 
England. 

Dr. Geike. — "With the call to repent, John 
united a significant rite for all who were willing 
to own their sins and promise amendment of 
life. It was the new and striking requirement 
of baptism which John had been sent by divine 
appointment to introduce. 

"The Mosaic ritual had indeed required 
washings and purifications, but they were 
mostly personal acts for cleansing from cere- 
monial defilements, and were repeated as often 
as new uncleanness demanded. But baptism 
was performed only once, and those who 
sought it had to receive it from the hands of 
John. The old rites and requirements of the 
Pharisees would not content him. A new 
symbol was needed, striking enough to express 
the vastness of the change he demanded and to 
form its fit beginning, and yet simple enough 
to be easily applied to the whole people, for all 
alike needed to break with the past and to 



104 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

enter upon the life of spiritual effort he pro- 
claimed Washing had been in all 

ages used as a religious symbol and significant 
rite. Naaman's leprosy had been cleansed 
away in the waters of the Jordan. The priests 
in the temple practiced constant ablutions, and 
others were required daily from the people at 
large, to remove ceremonial impurity. David 
had prayed 'Wash me from mine iniquity.' 
Isaiah had cried, ' Wash you, make you clean, 
put away the evil of your doings.' Ezekiel 
had* told his countrymen to 'Wash their hearts 
from wickedness. ' Ablution in the 

East is indeed, of itself, almost a religious 
duty. The dust and heat weigh upon the 
spirits and heart like a load; its removal is re- 
freshment and happiness. It was, hence, nearly 
impossible to see" a convert go down into a stream, 
travel-worn and soiled with dust, and, after dis- 
appearing for a moment, emerge, pure and fresh, 
without feeling that the symbol suited and in- 
terpreted a strong craving of the human heart. 
It was no formal rite with John. 
'He was a good man,' says Josephus, 'and 
urged the Jews who were willing to live wor- 
thily, and to show uprightness one to another, 
and piety toward God, to be baptized.' For 
baptism was approved of by him, not as a 
means of obtaining pardon for some sins only, 
but for the purity of the whole body, when 
the soul had been cleansed beforehand by 
righteousness. 

"On baptism itself he set no mysterious 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 105 

sacramental value. It was only water, a mere 
emblem of the purification required in the 
heart and life, and needed in an after baptism 
of the Holy Spirit. No one could receive it 
until he had proved his sincerity by an humble, 
public confession of his sins. Baptism then 
became a moral vow, to show, by a better life, 
that the change of heart was genuine. 

"Bathing in the Jordan had been a sacred 
symbol, at least since the days of Naaman, but 
immersion by one like John, with strict and 
humbling confession of sin, sacred vows of 
amendment, and hope of forgiveness, if they 
proved lasting, and all this, in preparation for 
the Messiah, was something wholly new in 
Israel. It marked, in a most striking way, the 
wonderful moral revolution which had taken 
place in the hearts of the people. If, as a 
school of the rabbis contend, it was even then 
the custom to baptize proselytes on their for- 
saking heathenism and seeking admission to 
the communion of Israel, the attitude of John 
toward the nation was even startling, and their 
submission to the rite a still greater proof of 
his power over the popular mind. In this case 
it was no less than the treatment of Israel as if 
it had become heathen, and needed to seek 
entrance again, on no higher footing than a 
Gentile convert, to the privileges it had lost. 

"Wholly self-oblivious, tainted by no stain 
of human pride, self-consciousness or low am- 
bition, John had felt it no usurpation to consti- 
tute himself the messenger predicted by Malachi, 



106 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

' sent to prepare the way of the Lord. ' Nor 
was his preaching more than an expansion of 
the prophet's words, that 'the Lord whom 
ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, 
even the Messenger of the Covenant whom ye 
delight in.' He had received the commission 
from no human lips, but had been set apart to 
it from above before his birth. Filled with the 
grandeur of his mission, nothing arrested him 
nor turned him aside. 

"The crowds saw in him the most unbend- 
ing strength, united with the most complete 
self-sacrifice; a type of grand fidelity to God 
and his truth and of the lowliest self-denial. 
The sorrows and hopes of Israel seemed to 
shine out of his eyes — bright with the inspira- 
tion of his soul, but sad with the greatness of 
his work — as he summoned the crowds to re- 
pentance, alarmed them by words of terror, or 
led them in groups to the Jordan' and immersed 
each singly in its waters, after earnest and full 
confession of their sins." 

Hear this witness still further: 

"John resisted no longer, and, leading Jesus- 
into the stream, the rite was performed. Can 
we question that such an act was a crisis in the 
life of our Lord? His perfect manhood, like 
that of other men, in all things except sin, 
forbids our doubting it. Holy and pure before 
sinking under the waters , he must yet have risen 
from them with the light of a higher glory in 
his countenance. His past life was closed; a 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. 107 

new era had opened. Hitherto the humble 
villager, veiled from the world, he was hence- 
forth the Messiah, openly working among men. 
It was the true moment of his entrance on a 
new life. Past years had been buried in the 
waters of the Jordan. He entered them as 
Jesus the Son of man; he rose from them the 
Christ, the Son of God."— "Life of Christ." 

This writer, Dr. Geikie, is a most eminent 
Christian scholar and divine. He is a pedo- 
baptist, and can not be accused of partiality 
toward the Baptists. He is certainly a most 
competent witness as to the mode of baptism, 
and his testimony is very full and explicit. 
He tells us John's baptism was immersion; 
that he immersed each convert singly, after 
confession of sin; that our Lord, when bap- 
tized, sank under the waters of the Jordan and 
rose from them. Can any sane man believe 
that our Lord, in commanding baptism, en- 
joined any different act than the sort of one 
used in his own baptism and described by the 
very same word? Clearly not. The word em- 
ployed to name it is the same, and therefore 
the act itself must be the same — immersion. 

Now, my dear brother, tell me what I am to 
do with the testimony of these twenty-four 
pedobaptist witnesses. It establishes the his- 
toric fact that immersion is the apostolic baptism, 



108 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

and that sprinkling and infant baptism are the 
inventions of men. In the face of such evi- 
dence, from so many most credible witnesses, 
how can I resume those pedobaptist practices ? 
Pedobaptist historians of the highest rank being 
judges, our Baptist practice of the immersion of 
professed believers only, as the scriptural baptism, 
is identical with the practice of the apostles, and 
required by the command of our Lord himself. 
How, then, can I cease this practice without 
disobedience to Christ and a willful departure 
from apostolic precedent? And how can I 
venture on such disobedience without incurring 
guilt? And could such disobedience fail to 
grieve my Lord? You can not fail to note my 
peculiar situation. In the kindness of your 
heart, you beg me to come back into the pedo- 
baptist fold ; but your own most eminent his- 
torians with one voice testify that the Baptist 
practice is apostolic, and pedobaptism an 
invention of subsequent ages, contrary to the 
example and command of our Lord and to the 
practice of his apostles. They are competent 
witnesses, and their testimony is very full and 
conclusive. Now all this — corroborated by a 
great cloud of other pedobaptist witnesses, 
men of the greatest eminence, men whose 
learning and truthfulness no one will deny— 



CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTIST WRITERS. IO9 

puts me in a most peculiar predicament. It 
pens me up, as it were, where I am. 

And it does more than that. It throws me 
into a brown study. In the light of these- 
multiplied testimonies, I can not quite under- 
stand why you do not come over to the Baptists. 
You profess to love our Lord, and to make his 
Word the rule of your life. Then why not 
obey that Word in respect to baptism, as well 
as in other things ? If baptism is a small mat- 
ter, why not obey in small things? As ever, 
yours, . 



1 10 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 



VI. 

TESTIMONY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS. 



"Forever, Lord, thy word is settled in heaven!' 
— Psalmist. 

My Dear Brother: — Is it not a singular 
fact that those ponderous tomes, the encyclo- 
pedias, are, universally, swift witnesses against 
pedobaptist practices? Of course, I refer to 
those great literary standard works which are 
prepared not in the interest of any sect, but 
for the conservation of impartial, unbending 
truth alone. With rare exceptions they are 
the product of the ripest scholarship and the 
most thorough research of the age, written by 
a host of the most talented men, who are 
selected from widely separated regions, from 
the various professions, and without the slight- 
est regard to denominational lines, on the score 
of fitness. And they embody, in a condensed 
form, the best results of the widest investiga- 
tion and the latest discoveries by the most 



TESTIMONY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS. Ill 

eminent students in-all the various fields of ob- 
servation and of thought. 

They are neither controversial nor partial, 
neither Baptist nor pedobaptist, but, like every 
good dictionary, independent, concise, and, as 
far as possible to the most careful and painstak- 
ing erudition, correct. Generally, if not always, 
it has so happened hitherto that they have been 
edited and published by men who are pedobap- 
tists, chiefly, I suppose, because, in "the 
present distress," our Baptist friends are com- 
paratively in the minority, and have too much 
other work on hand to permit them to engage 
largely in encyclopedia-making — a state of 
things likely to change by and by. 

But this fact, that they are usually, if not in 
every instance, controlled by pedobaptist editors 
and publishers, adds great weight to that other 
fact to which I called your attention at the be- 
ginning of this letter — that they are, universally, 
swift witnesses against pedobaptist practices. 
Strange, isn't it, that they don't sometimes lean 
the other way? One would think that if the 
pedobaptists were right, these great reservoirs 
of knowledge would be full of evidences, inci- 
dental and direct, in support of their own 
claims. Indeed, granting they are right, one 
can not imagine how the great encyclopedias 



112 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

could be so made up as even to obscure that 
fact in the least degree, especially under the 
management of men friendly to their peculiar 
views and usages. And yet there stands the 
fact that the encyclopedias, sent forth by men 
of the highest character, as repositories of in- 
contestable truth for the enlightenment of man- 
kind, bear distinct testimony against them. 

Encyclopedia Britannica — Art. Baptism. — 
"Christian baptism is the sacrament by which 
a person is initiated into the Christian Church. 
The word is derived from the Greek baptizo, 
the frequentative form of bapto, to dip, or wash. 
The usual way of performing the ceremony 
was by immersion. In the case of sick persons 
(clinici) the minister was allowed to baptize by 
pouring water upon the head, or by sprinkling. 
In the early Church * clinical* baptism, as it 
was called, was only permitted in cases of ne- 
cessity, but the practice of baptism by sprink- 
ling gradually came in, in spite of the opposi- 
tion of councils and hostile decrees. The 
Council of Ravenna, in 131 1, was the first 
Council of the Church which legalized baptism 
by sprinkling, by leaving it to the choice of the 
officiating minister." 

Encyclopedia Americana — Art. Baptism. — 
"Baptism (that is, dipping, immersing, from 
the Greek baptizo) was usual with the Jews 
even before Christ. In the time of the apos- 
tles the form of baptism was very simple. 



TESTIMONY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS. 1 1 3 

The person to be baptized was dipped in a 
fiver, or vessel, with the words which Christ 
had ordered, and, to express more fully his 
change of character, generally adopted a new 
name." 

Metropolitan Encyclopedia — Art. Bapt. — 
"We readily admit that the literal meaning of 
the word baptism is immersion, and that the 
desire of resorting again to the most ancient 
practice of the Church of immersing the body, 
which has been expressed by many divines, is 
well worthy of being considered." 

Penny Cyclopedia — Art. Bapt. — "The man- 
ner in which it (baptism) was performed 
appears to have been at first by immersion. ,, 

Chambers's Encyclopedia — Art. Bapt. — "It 
is, however, indisputable that, in the primitive 
Church, the ordinary mode of baptism was by 
immersion, in order to which baptisteries began 
to be erected in the third, perhaps in the 
second century, and the sexes were usually 
baptized apart. But baptism was administered 
to sick persons by sprinkling, although doubts 
as to the complete efficacy of this clinic (sick) 
baptism were evidently prevalent in the time of 
Cyprian, in the middle of the third century. 
Baptism by sprinkling gradually became more 
prevalent, but the dispute concerning the mode 
of baptism became one of the irreconcilable 
differences between the Eastern and the West- 
ern churches, the former generally adhering to 
the practice of immersion, while the latter 
adopted the mere pouring of water on the 
8 



114 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

head, or sprinkling on the face ; which practice 
has generally prevailed since the thirteenth cen- 
tury, but not universally, for it was the ordinary 
practice in England, before the Reformation, to 
immerse infants, and the fonfs in the churches 
were made large enough for this purpose. 
This continued also to be the practice until the 
reign of Elizabeth, and the change which then 
took place is ascribed to the English divines 
who had sought refuge in Geneva and other 
places on the continent during the reign of 
Mary. 

"To this day the rubric of the Church of 
England requires that, if the godfathers and 
godmothers 'shall certify that the child may 
well endure it, the officiating priest shall dip it 
in the water discreetly and warily, ' and it is only 
'if they shall certify that the child is weak,' 
that 'it shall suffice to pour water upon it;' 
which, however, or sprinkling, is now the ordi- 
nary practice." 

Surely this is strong testimony from a very 
high source, such as only the behests of un- 
deniable truth could have extorted from its 
author. 

Edinburgh Encyclopedia — Art. Baptism.— 
"The first law to sanction aspersion as a mode 
of baptism was by Pope Stephen II., A. D. 
753. But it was not till the year 131 1 that a 
Council, held at Ravenna, declared immersion 
or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this coun- 



TESTIMONY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS. I I 5 

try, however (Scotland), sprinkling was never 
practiced in ordinary cases till after the Refor- 
mation ; and in England, even in the reign of 
Edward VI., immersion was commonly ob- 
served. These Scottish exiles, who had re- 
nounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly 
acknowledged the authority of Calvin, and, 
returning 'to their own country, with John 
Knox at their head, in 1559 established sprink- 
ling in Scotland. 

"From Scotland it made its way into England 
in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not author- 
ized by the Established Church. In the 
Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 
1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion 
or sprinkling should be adopted: twenty-five 
voted for sprinkling, and twenty -four for im- 
mersion ; and even that small majority was at- 
tained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, 
who had acquired great influence in the As- 
sembly." 

Art. Baptisteries. — "Baptisteries were an- 
ciently very capacious, because, as Dr. Cote 
observes, the stated times of baptism returning 
but seldom, there were usually great multitudes 
to be baptized at the same time, and then the 
manner of baptizing by immersion, or dipping 
under water, made it necessary to have a large 
font." 

National Cyclopedia — Art. Bapt. — ' 'The 
manner in which the rite was performed appears 
to have been at first by complete immersion." 

Rees's Cyclopedia — Art. Bapt.— "In prim- 



Il6 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

itive times this ceremony was performed by 
immersion. ' ' 

Brand's Cyclopedia — Art. Bapt. — ' 'Baptism 
was originally administered by immersion, which 
act is thought by some necessary to the sacra- 
ment. " 

Encyclopedia Ecclesiastica — Art. Bapt. — 
"Whatever weight, however, may be in these 
reasons, as a defense for the present practice 
of sprinkling, it is evident that during the first 
ages of the Church, and for many centuries 
afterward, the practice of immersion prevailed." 

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge — Art. Bapt. — "In the primitive 
Church, baptism was by immersion, except in the 
case of the sick (clinic baptism), who were 
baptized by pouring, or sprinkling. These 
latter were often regarded as not properly bap- 
tized, either because they had not completed 
their catechumenate, or the symbolism of the 
rite was not fully observed, or because of the 
small amount of water necessarily used. [The 
twelfth canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea 
(3 14-325) is : i Whoever has received clinic bap- 
tism (through his own fault) can not become a 
priest, because he professed his faith under 
pressure (fear of death), and not from deliberate 
choice, unless he greatly excel afterward in zeal 
and faith, or there is a deficiency of other eli- 
gible men.' — Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. 
I., Sec. 17, first edition.] In A. D. 816, the 
Council of Calcuith (Chelsea, in England) for- 
bade the priests to pour water upon the infants' 



TESTIMONY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS. 117 

heads, but ordered to immerse them. Hefele 
(Vol. IV., Sec. 414): The Council of Ne- 
mours (1284) limited sprinkling to cases of 
necessity,' and Thomas Aquinas {Summa TJico- 
logica, TfllL, Qu. 66., Art 7, De Baptismd) 
says: 'Although it may be safer to baptize by 
immersion, yet pouring and sprinkling are also 
allowable.' The Council of Ravenna (13 n) 
was the first to allow a choice between sprink- 
ling and immersion ( eleventh canon, Hefele, 
Vol. VI., Sec. 699); but, at an earlier date 
(1287), the canons of the Council of the Liege 
Bishop John prescribe the way in which the 
sprinkling of children should be performed. 
The practice first came into common u-se at the end 
of the thirteenth century, and was favored by the 
growing rarity of adult baptism. It is the 
present practice of the Roman Church ; but in 
the Greek Church immersion is insisted on as 
essential. Luther sided with the immersion- 
ists, described the baptismal act as an immer- 
sion, and derived Taufe (German for ' baptism ') 
from #>/ ('deep'), because what one baptized, 
be sank tief in the water." 

Koto's Encyclopedia of Biblical Litera- 
ture — Art. Bapt. — "Infant baptism was estab- 
lished neither by Christ nor the apostles. In 
all places where we find the necessity of bap- 
tism notified, either in a dogmatic or historical 
point of view, it is evident that it was only 
meant for those who were capable of compre- 
hending the word preached, and of being con- 
verted to Christ by an act of their own will. 



Il8 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

A pretty sure testimony of its non-existence in 
the apostolic age may be inferred from I Cor. 
vii. 14, since .Paul would certainly have 
referred to the baptism of the children for their 
holiness. (Compare Neander, 'History of 
Planting,' page 206.) But even in later times, 
several teachers of the Church, such as Tertul- 
lian (De Bapt., 18) and others, reject the cus- 
tom; indeed, his Church in general (that of 
North Africa) adhered longer than the others 
to the primitive regulations. Even when the 
baptism of children was already theoretically 
derived from the apostles, its practice was 
nevertheless, for a long time, confined to a 
mature age. 

"In support of the contrary opinion, the 
advocates in former ages (now hardly any) 
used to appeal to Matt. xix. 14; but their 
strongest argument in its favor is the regulation 
of baptizing all the members of a house and 
family (1 Cor. xvi. 15, Acts xvi. 33, and Acts 
xviii. 8.) In none of these instances has it 
been proved that there were little children 
among them; but even supposing that there 
were, there was no necessity for excluding 
them from baptism in plain words, since such 
exclusion was understood as a matter of 
course. 

" Many circumstances conspired early* to in- 
troduce the practice of infant baptizing. The 
confusion between the outward and inward 
conditions of baptism, and the magical effect 
that was imputed to it; confusion of thought 
about the visible and invisible church, con- 



TESTIMONY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS. I IQ 

demning all those who did not belong to the 
former; the doctrine of the natural corruption 
of man, so closely connected with the preced- 
ing; and finally, the desire of distinguishing 
Christian children from the Jewish and heathen, 
and of commending them more effectually to 
the care of the Christian community; — all 
these circumstances, and many more, have 
contributed to the introduction of infant bap- 
tism at a very early period. "■ — Prof . J. Jacobi. 

" As the topic of baptism seemed to be well 
exhausted in this country, the editor thought 
that some freshness of effect might be produced 
by presenting the subject to the reader from a 
German point of view. The article was there- 
fore offered to Dr. Neander, the Church 
Historian and Professor of Theology in the 
University of Berlin. His multiplied preen- 
gagements, however, induced him, with the 
editor's consent, to consign the subject to Rev. 
J. Jacobi, of the same University; and in due 
time the MS. of the present article arrived, 
accompanied by the following note from Dr. 
Neander, to whose inspection it had previously 
been submitted by the author : 

" ; As my other labors would not permit me 
to work out the article (on baptism) for the 
Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, I requested 
a dear friend, J. Jacobi, to undertake it, who, 
by his knowledge and critical talents, is fully 
qualified for the task, and whose theological 
principles are in unison- with my own. 

'"A. NEANDER.'" 

— Editorial Note, Kitto's Cyclopedia t Art. Baptism. 



120 BEFORE THE FOOT- LIGHTS. 

Now, my dear brother, if you will scan these 
testimonies from twelve standard encyclope- 
dias, you will not fail to find in them "food for 
thought" that will prove to be at least interest- 
ing, if not cheering to you. With one voice 
they testify that immersion is the primitive 
apostolic baptism. And they show conclu- 
sively that sprinkling is of a later date— a con- 
trivance of men that originated in a false idea 
respecting the importance of baptism — moving 
those whom it controlled to devise a sort of 
compromise with the Lord by the substitution 
of a sort of bed-bath for that full immersion 
which constituted the true and the only au- 
thorized baptism, in the hope that the Lord 
would accept it, since a full act of baptism had 
become impossible. 

And they trace the gradual growth of that 
bed-bath substitute for baptism in the public 
favor, until, after the lapse of more than one 
thousand years from its first appearance, it 
came, in some quarters of the Roman Catholic 
Church, to be very generally accepted in place 
of the true baptism. And then they show the 
lamentable spectacle of the great leaders of the 
early Protestantism of Europe consenting to 
continue the use of this conceded innovation.' 
They show us how the great reputation of 



TESTIMONY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS. 121 

Calvin, Knox and Lightfoot gave it currency, 
until it became the general practice in Scotland 
and in England. And we are assured by these 
great authorities that, as this contrivance of 
men grew in popularity, it steadily diminished 
in volume, until, from a full bed-bath, it shrank 
away into a mere moistening of a bit of the 
forehead by a few drops of water from the 
wetted tips of two or three fingers of the 
priestly hand — a queer sort of sprinkling, with 
the sprinkling left out — such as the great mass 
of pedobaptist ministers gravely persist in 
using to this day. And one of these wit- 
nesses, whose testimony no man disputes, tells 
us how this shrunken contrivance was imposed 
upon the good people of old England by the 
Westminster Assembly, about the middle of 
the seventeenth century, by a vote of twenty -five 
to twenty-four, and the witness adds the undeni- 
able but rather humiliating fact, that "Even 
that small majority was attained at the earnest 
request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired 
great influence in the Assembly." 

There you have it in a very few words. The 
authority of Christ in his own ordinance set 
aside, first by North African superstition ; then 
by Roman Catholic audacity fully supplanted 
in Catholic lands, and, at last, superseded 



122 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

among English-speaking Protestants by the vote 
of one man. 

And parallel with this great change, these 
witnesses establish the fact of another change 
respecting the same ordinance, equally unwar- 
ranted and even more destructive in its influence 
upon the Christian world — the introduction and 
establishment of infant baptism. Beginning 
about the same time as the bed-bath, arising 
out of the same superstitious notions of the 
virtue of baptism as an indispensable medium 
of the grace of eternal life, and sustained by 
the weight of great names, by appeals to the 
tender affections of parents toward their help- 
less babes, favored by the growing formalism 
and the deepening ignorance and credulity of 
the masses of the people, and, at length, 
adopted and rigidly enforced by the civil and 
ecclesiastical powers by means of the dreaded 
excommunication, and by the still more potent 
agency of the prison, the faggot and the sword, 
it was made effective and well-nigh universal 
many hundreds of years before its twin sister, 
sprinkling, attained to general acceptance and 
popular favor. 

And this change, made by men and perpetu- 
ated by men against the example and authority 
of Christ and his apostles, made possible the 



TESTIMONY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS. 123 

usurpations, corruptions and tyranny of the 
Papacy, and of all State and Church establish- 
ments, by introducing the corrupt world into 
the Church en masse, until a large part of 
Christendom came to be — what large sections 
of it are even to this day — merely a baptized 
paganism, as you may see in Mexico, Spain, 
Italy, Austria, France, Russia, and many other 
nominally Christian countries. And these two 
great and deadly innovations are to-day in use, 
honored, practiced, and, as far as possible, de- 
fended, in all pedobaptist churches. 

Now, my dear brother, consider my dilemma. 
If I remain a Baptist, I am sure to be de- 
nounced by my pedobaptist friends as a 
narrow-minded bigot, as opposed to the broad, 
liberal, intelligent and progressive spirit of the 
age ; and unless you have an immense amount 
of grace, you will join in the hue and cry 
against me, especially if I am — what I ought 
to be — an earnest, Wide-awake, decided Baptist. 
But, on the other hand, if I cease to be a Bap- 
tist and accept your kind invitation to return to 
my old pedobaptist home, I will, thereby, 
cease to obey Christ in the most solemn acts of 
worship — in the use of his ordinances — and at 
once begin the use of mere human substitutes 
for the things he has commanded. And I 



124 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

could not now plead ignorance as an excuse for 
such strange disobedience to the Master, for 
these great encyclopedic witnesses, were there 
no others, would condemn me. If they stood 
alone, their testimony is so clear and so formi- 
dable that I am quite sure it could never be set 
aside. But, as you are well aware, they are 
not alone; they constitute only one of many 
great bands of witnesses, each of which is, of 
itself, convincing and incontrovertible. 

Why just think of it ; they might well be 
called legion, for they are many — a great host — 
and their ranks are rapidly growing larger and 
more respectable all the time. If I should 
come back to you, I could no more refute these 
pedobaptist witnesses against pedobaptist prac- 
tices than I could effectually " call spirits from 
the vasty deep/' I would be as powerless, in 
that respect, as you are, and my only hope of 
any peace would be in shutting my eyes and 
closing my ears, so that I might not see nor 
hear these troublesome testimonies against us 
from our own camp. But even that painful 
plan would surely fail; for the light and the 
truth that have already gained an entrance 
into my mind could not be thrust out by any 
process that I know of, and the voice of con- 
science would certainly torment me all the 



TESTIMONY OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS. 125 

time. Then how could I go at it to defend 
pedobaptist practices under such circumstances? 
Honestly, my brother, I do not believe I 
could do it. I do not claim to excel other dis- 
ciples of the Master in piety and goodness, but 
to stand up before a congregation on the Lord's 
day, or on any other day, and gravely tell them 
that sprinkling is baptism, and that infant bap- 
tism is scriptural, requires a degree of egotistic 
boldness and a recklessness of "putting things" 
to which I confess I am not at all equal. 
Therefore, unless you can devise some plan to 
get rid of these encyclopedians and the other 
clouds of pedobaptist witnesses against your 
practice, I shall be obliged to decline your gen- 
erous invitation. 

But with due deference to your talent and 
learning, I do not anticipate anything of that 
sort. Even very able men can not accomplish 
the impossible. Facts are not only ' 'stubborn 
things," but, when well-defined, they are 
stronger than any man's rhetoric. I know 
your wit and genius and logical acumen are of 
no mean order, but the task — "to make the 
worse appear the better reason" — in this case 
is appalling. Like towering mountain peaks 
the adverse facts rise up on every side, and the 
fogs have disappeared to such a degree that 



126 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

longer concealment of them is quite beyond 
the skill of any man. 

Indeed, I am not sure that you may not be 
in a mood to give up the unequal contest and 
come over to the Baptists. Should you con- 
clude to do so, you will lose your harassing 
doubts and gain a certainty of the approval of 
the Master that will be a perpetual joy. 

Fraternally yours, . 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. 12J 



VII. 

THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. 



" Therefore we are buried with him by baptism 
into death." — Paul. 

My Dear Brother: — The symbolism of 
baptism very clearly indicates its external form. 
Indeed, the symbolism is in the form and in- 
separable from it. Change the form, and you 
at once destroy the symbolism. The ordi- 
nance of the Lord's Supper, when duly 
observed according to the manner of its institu- 
tion, is an eloquent symbol of his death, and 
of the benefits derived from it by the believer. 
It speaks of a body broken for us, and of blood 
shed for us, and of the benefits of both appro- 
priated by faith, cleansing from sin, and sus- 
taining the renewed, spiritual life — the life of 
God in the soul — as bread supports the phys- 
ical life. 

But* now omit the breaking of the bread, 
and take away the cup, and what remains? 



128 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

The sacrificial element of the symbolism is 
eliminated. Under the emblem of the bread 
eaten, our dependence on Christ is symbolized ; 
but it is not the Christ crucified. The new 
symbol is fully met and all its demands are 
satisfied, when those who employ it accept the 
Christ as a teacher sent from God, and adopt 
him as the model man, whose excellencies they 
will seek to imitate in developing - their own 
characters — living by him in precisely the same 
sense in which the philosophic student lives by 
his master. Who needs to be told that this 
would be another gospel than the old apostolic 
one which was ' ' the power of God unto salva- 
tion" — a gospel with neither cross, nor blood, 
nor life in it? And yet it is the indisputable 
teaching of the symbolism of the Supper, when 
the outward form of it has been changed in 
only these two particulars. 

In a similar way must a change in the form 
of baptism affect the symbolic teaching of that 
ordinance. If you change the immersion into 
sprinkling, you have a symbolism of cleansing 
— that, and nothing more. If you inquire 
concerning the nature and extent of the cleans- 
ing, the modified ordinance is silent. If you 
ask by what means that cleansing is effected, 
the new ordinance is equally silent. It has but 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. 120, 

one voice, and that tells of a cleansing, and 
gives no hint of the agency by which it is to 
be effected, nor of the thoroughness of it. In 
changing the form of the ordinance, you have 
changed and thereby destroyed its symbolism. 
If you doubt this, interrogate the ordinance in 
its original apostolic form — immersion. 

To begin with, it symbolizes a cleansing, in 
the use of that cleansing element, water. But 
it does not stop there. Submersion beneath 
the baptismal waters can not mean less than an 
entire, complete cleansing of the whole person. 
Every part goes into the water, and beneath 
the surface of it, and that indicates that every 
part must be cleansed — not the head only, but 
the hands, the feet, the heart, as well. 

But look carefully into the baptismal font. 
Do you not see therein more than a symbol of 
cleansing? What mean the descent of the 
candidate under the water and his ascent there- 
from? Is it possible that an ordinance so 
peculiar, means nothing more than cleansing? 
Is there not, in the hiding of the baptized, for 
the moment, beneath the water, some special 
meaning? An inspired apostle treats it as a 
symbol of burial with Christ. He calls it 
"the likeness of his death." And the least 
that this can mean is, that it is something so 



130 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

related, in form, to death — something so asso- 
ciated with death — that it recalls the fact of 
death ; and being done in the name of the Son, 
it brings before the mind his death. 

And you will concede that there is in immer- 
sion a striking resemblance to a burial. There 
is, in the sinking out of sight, or, at least, 
beneath the water, as perfect a symbol of 
burial as human ingenuity can well imagine. 

But only the dead are usually buried. Christ 
was not laid away out of sight of men, in 
Joseph's new tomb, until he was dead. We 
do not lay the bodies of our friends in the 
grave until they are dead. But when they are 
dead, the next thing in order is their burial; 
and this follows so certainly and so uniformly 
that a burial always speaks to us of death. 

So the man who turns to Christ, abandons 
the old life of sin — becomes dead to it, and it 
to him — does it by virtue of the death of Christ, 
by which he becomes crucified to the world — 
and so, entering the baptismal bath, he is sym- 
bolically and solemnly " buried with him into 
death." The thing set' forth by the baptismal 
burial is not the manner of the death, but the 
fact of it, and the efficacious cause of it. And 
then, very naturally, the rising out of the 
water becomes the symbol of the rising into 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. 131 

the new life of Christ-following, through the 
power of the risen and glorified Christ. 

So inspiration describes the symbolism of 
baptism — gives to each part of its divinely pre- 
scribed form a voice that no one can mistake. 
As a man descends into the water, he thereby 
proclaims himself dead to sin, dead to the old 
life, dead to it through the death of Christ; 
and, because thus dead, he will be buried with 
Christ. But death to sin implies a resurrection 
to holiness. So he rises up to a new life 
through the resurrection of Christ. As the 
death of Christ, "who was delivered for our 
offenses," wrought his death to sin, thereby 
fitting himself to be "buried with him," so the 
resurrection of Christ, ' ' who rose again for our 
justification," wrought in him "newness of 
life," making him meet to rise with him into a 
life of Christ-likeness. So his symbolic burial 
is followed immediately by a symbolic resur- 
rection. That this is the true and actual sym- 
bolism of baptism rests upon a solid basis — 
nothing less than the testimony of the great 
apostle to the Gentiles in the sixth chapter of 
Romans, and also in the second chapter of 
Colossians. No man in his senses can imagine, 
even for a moment, that any person is literally 
buried by baptism into death. Taken in such 



132 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

a sense, the statement in Rom. vi. 4, is an 
evident absurdity. 

But not less absurd is it when construed as 
the statement of a spiritual burial by a spiritual 
baptism, or of a spiritual burial by a literal 
baptism. There is no allusion, in the entire 
passage, to a spiritual baptism. Such baptism 
is not the theme of the discussion, nor can it, 
in any way, be pressed into the discussion, 
either as an argument or as an illustration. 
The argument is a refutation of the proposi- 
tion, "Let us continue in sin, that grace may 
abound" — a proposition that could not have 
emanated from those who had actually re- 
ceived the baptism of the Spirit. Yet those 
who are supposed to urge it, as a license of 
sinful living, are addressed as "baptized" per- 
sons, and from their own baptism is drawn a 
very powerful refutation of their error. They 
had been "baptized into Christ," and in that 
act had been also "baptized into his death." 
In fact, they had been "buried with him by 
baptism into death." All this points distinctly 
to a literal baptism, and recalls most forcibly 
the solemn professions made in that act, urging 
them as conclusive reasons why those who 
have been so baptized should live holy lives. 
In that solem transaction they had renounced 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. 1 33 

the old life of sin, and had, in some way, 
declared themselves dead to it, engaging also 
to walk "in newness of life;" and these solemn 
vows and professions, in their baptism, bound 
them to a life of holiness, and the more so, 
that, in some way, they had been united 
together in the "likeness of his death" in that 
ordinance. 

Now there is nothing in the "baptism of the 
Spirit" that tallies with this argument. That 
baptism does not "bury" men "into death." 
There is in it no shadow of the "likeness of 
his death." It quickens men who are already 
spiritually alive into an intensity of spiritual 
life and power not otherwise attainable by the 
best of men. Those who had received that 
baptism would need no argument to convince 
them that they should not ' ' continue in sin, 
that grace may abound." Imagine Peter and 
John, the next day after Pentecost, saying, 
"Let us continue in sin, that grace may 
abound !" 

Nor can the apostle, in Rom. vi. 4, intend 
to ascribe a spiritual burial to a literal baptism, 
for that were to clothe such baptism with a 
transforming power entirely foreign to it; a 
power to regenerate and save the soul, actually, 
"washing away the filth of the flesh," and mak- 



134 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

ing all the baptized "heirs of God and joint 
heirs with Jesus Christ." If the apostle means 
to tell us that by literal baptism men are spiritu- 
ally, that is, actually, made "dead to sin," and 
alive with Christ, then in another place he 
should have written, "Therefore, being justified 
by baptism, we have peace with God," and in 
another place, "By grace are ye saved, through 
baptism,' 1 and in another, "The just shall live 
by baptism.'' And in that case, he should have 
omitted the sixth chapter of Romans entirely, 
since the things he there labors to establish 
must have been already secured beyond a per- 
adventure, by the simpler process of baptism. 

But evidently the apostle regarded baptism, 
not as a saving, but simply as a professing ordi- 
nance; and thence drew legitimate arguments, 
enforcing upon the baptized the imperative 
duty of making good in the life the. solemn and 
beautiful vows of the baptismal font. 

And this conclusion, which can not rationally 
be evaded by any careful biblical student, makes 
it evident that the baptism dwelt upon in the 
sixth chapter of Romans is that literal water 
baptism which our Lord established for all his 
disciples, to which those ancient brethren in 
Rome had submitted, and by which are set 
forth, figuratively, the death of the baptized to 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. I 35 

sin, and his consequent resurrection into a new, 
holy life through the death and resurrection of 
our Lord. 

But this being admitted, we have in this 
symbolism a sure indication of the form of the 
apostolic baptism. Only an immersion could 
give the symbolism of a burial and a rising 
again. The son of a certain Presbyterian min- 
ister understood this matter very thoroughly. 
His father, leaving home to fill an appointment, 
told him to go and bury a goose which had 
just died. Returning home, the old gentleman 
saw the goose in the middle of the road, a little 
dust having been sprinkled over it. Calling his 
son, he said: 

"Did I not tell you to bury that goose?" 

"Yes, sir," was the prompt reply, "and I 
did bury it." 

"Beware, sir," replied the father; "beware 
how you trifle with me. You did not bury that 
goose. You left it in the middle of the road, 
with a little dust sprinkled over it. Do you 
call that burying it?" 

"Why, yes, sir," said the son; "I buried the 
goose by sprinkling, just as you bury the 
people in baptism by sprinkling. Isn't that the 
right way to bury things ?" 

"An old saw!" you say. Yes, so it is ; but 



136 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

a very sharp one, and so set that it cuts to the 
line. No ingenuity of man can make sprinkling 
fit into Rom. vi. 4. It suits neither the text nor 
the sense. Suppose we read it as you pedo- 
baptists practice it; * 'Therefore, we are buried 
with him by sprinkling into death. Yet this 
reading, which is so absurd that no educated 
pedobaptist on earth would think of defending 
it, expresses precisely the incongruity of your 
practice. Why blame a boy for burying a 
goose by sprinkling, when hosts of grave 
divines are employed every day burying men, 
women and children in the same way ? How 
can the boy be wrong if those divines are 
right? 

The symbolism of baptism, as set forth by 
the apostle in Rom. vi. 4, is a great obstacle 
in the way of those who are determined to 
promote the practice of sprinkling, for the 
average man can not understand how it is that 
a mere wetting of the forehead can symbolize a 
burial, or how it can be in any sense a likeness 
of Christ's death. And, if left to himself, he is 
sure to conclude that the baptism to which the 
apostle alludes is an immersion ; whence, in his 
judgment, it inevitably follows that the true 
apostolic baptism — that to which our Lord him- 
self submitted — that which he commands his 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. 1 37 

disciples to administer, and that which they 
did administer — is not a sprinkling but an 
immersion. 

Hence the remarkable efforts of a very few 
modern pedobaptist writers to put a new inter- 
pretation upon the apostolic words, and there- 
by break their force, or, at least, in some 
measure, obscure their meaning. But these 
efforts are predestined failures. Coming at so 
late a day, and with a purpose so evidently 
partisan, and being in their very nature so con- 
trary to the plain, unmistakable import of the 
inspired words, they can not deceive very 
many. 

The great mass of pedobaptist writers frankly 
admit that the baptism mentioned in Rom. vi. 
4, is immersion. Permit me to place before 
you a few samples from some of your best 
authors on this point. If you do not care to 
read them, you can skip over a few pages ; but 
I advise you to examine them patiently and 
carefully, that you may have some notion of 
the mountains of evidence — undoubted pedo- 
baptist evidence — over which I must wearily 
climb if I accept your kind invitation to return 
again to my old pedobaptist church home. 
These, and a host more, equally conclusive 
testimonies, seem to warn me away from your 



I38 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

verdant fields, with ill-concealed intimations 
that underneath their inviting slopes there are 
dangerous quicksands, which the wary pilgrim 
would do well carefully to avoid. 

Or, if you like not similes so pastoral, they 
are so many glowing foot-lights, exposing the 
paint and tinselry and inventions of the play 
in which you so kindly invite me to join, and 
assuring me that a performance so entirely 
artistic and artificial can be neither wholesome 
nor enduring. 

And really, I do not mind telling you that, 
sitting here before this great mass of brilliant 
foot-lights, I am rather glad that I am no longer 
behind those painted scenes. And I half 
believe that, in your heart, you will agree with 
me that the emptiness of the play is at times a 
severe trial to the Christian manhood of the 
actors. At all events, you must admit that 
there is something of weariness in being 
obliged to deal forever with mere shadows and 
contrivances, that, at the best, amount to 
nothing, while they tax your ingenuity and 
patience in the bootless task of patching, re- 
pairing and defending them. 

Should this be, indeed, your sad plight, I 
know of no other remedy than to abandon at 
once the whole play, and hasten over to the 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. 1 39 

solid verities of gospel truth and practice. 
And having myself tried this remedy, I can 
assure you that it is effective and comforting, 
giving one a sense of relief from harassing un- 
certainty, and a most comfortable and ever- 
growing conviction that the old way, to which 
one has newly come, is the divinely-ordained, 
and therefore the indisputably right and endur- 
ing way. 

Before I proceed to lay before you some of 
the testimonies of eminent pedobaptist writers 
on the meaning of Rom. vi. 4, '''Therefore we 
are buried with him by baptism into death" etc., 
allow me to remind you that, if it be conceded 
that the baptism alluded to is that which the 
apostles practiced, and that it was an immer- 
sion, then sprinkling must of necessity be post- 
apostolic, and equally of necessity must it be 
unscriptural — an unprofitable and unwarranted 
invention of men. 

Now please study these testimonies from 
some of your best authors, and either refute 
them, or give up your indefensible practices, 
and join us in the practice and in the defense of 
scriptural baptism and its correlated scriptural 
truth. 

Rev. Albert Barnes on Rom. vi. 4, "There- 
fore we are buried" etc. — "It is altogether prob- 



140 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

able that the apostle, in this place, had allusion 
to the custom of baptizing by immersion. This 
can not, indeed, be proved so as to be liable to 
no objection, but I presume this is the idea 
which would strike the great mass of unpreju- 
diced readers." — Notes on Romans. 

Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D. D., LL. D., on 
Rom. vi. 3, 4. — "The original meaning of the 
word baptism is immersion, and though we re- 
gard it as a point of indifferency whether the 
ordinance so named be performed in this way 
or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the 
prevalent style in the apostles' days was by an 
actual submerging of the whole body under 
water. We advert to this for the purpose of 
throwing light on the analogy that is instituted 
in these verses. Jesus Christ, by death, under- 
went this sort of baptism, even immersion 
under the surface of the ground, whence he 
soon emerged again by his resurrection. We, 
by being baptized into his death, are conceived 
to have made a similar translation. In the act 
of descending under the water of baptism, to 
have resigned an old life; and in the act of 
ascending, to emerge into a second or a new 
life, along the course of which it is our part to 
maintain a strenuous avoidance of that sin, which 
as good as expunged the being that we had 
formerly, and a strenuous prosecution of that 
holiness, which should begin with the first 
moment that we were ushered into our present 
being, and be perpetuated and make progress 
toward the perfection of full and ripened im- 
mortality. " — Lectures. 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. I4I 

Archbishop Tillotson. — ' ' Being buried with 
him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with 
him through the faith of the operation of God, 
who hath raised him from the dead. 

"Being buried with him in baptism. For the. 
full understanding of this expression we must 
have recourse to that parallel text (Rom. vi. 
3-5), which will explain to us the meaning of 
this phrase : 'Know ye not that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ ww baptized 
into his death f Therefore we are buried with 
him by baptism into death : that like as Christ 
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
Father, even so we also sJiould walk in newness 
of life. For if we have been planted together in 
the likeness of his death, zue shall be also in the 
likeness of his resurrection' Where we see that 
to be baptized into the death and resurrection of 
Christ is to be baptized into the similitude 
and likeness of them ; and the resemblance 
is this, that as Christ, being dead, was buried 
in the grave, and, after some stay in it, that is, 
for three days, he was raised again out of it, 
by the glorious power of God, to a new and 
heavenly life, being not long after taken up 
into heaven to live at the right hand of God ; 
so Christians, when they were baptized, were 
immersed into the water, .... their bodies 
being covered all over with it ; which is, there- 
fore, called our being buried in baptism into 
death ; and after some short stay under water, 
were raised or taken up again out of it, as if 
they had been recovered to a new life, by all 



142 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

which was spiritually signified our dying to 
sin, and being raised to a divine and heavenly 
life through the faith of the operation of God; 
that is, by that divine and supernatural power 
which raised up Christ from the dead. So 
that Christians from henceforth were to reckon 
themselves dead unto sin, but alive unto God, 
through Jesus Christ, as the apostle speaks 
(Rom. vi. 11)." — Sermon on Resurrection of 
Christ. 

Whitefield on Rom. vi. 3, 4. — "It is cer- 
tain that in the words of our text there is ah al- 
lusion to the manner of baptizing, which was by 
immersion." 

John Wesley on Rom. vi. 4. — "The allusion 
is to the ancient manner of baptizing by immer- 
sion." — Notes. 

Benson on Rom. vi. 4, " Buried with Christ 
by baptism." — "Alluding to the ancient manner 
of baptizing by immersion. " — Commentary. 

Bloomfield on Rom. vi. 4. — "Here is a 
plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptizing 
by immersion, and I agree with Koppe and 
Rosenmuller that there is reason to regret that 
it should have been abandoned in most Chris- 
tian churches, especially as it has so evident a 
reference to the mystic sense of baptism." 

Adam Clark, D. D., on Rom. vi. 4. — "It is 
probable that the apostle here alludes to the 
mode of administering baptism by immersion, 
the whole body being put under water." 

Conybeare and Howson. — "It is needless to 
add that baptism was (unless in exceptional 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. I 43 

cases) administered by immersion, the convert 
being plunged beneath the surface of the water, 
to represent his death to the life of sin, and 
then raised from this momentary burial, to 
represent his resurrection to the life of righteous- 
ness. It must be a subject of regret that the 
general discontinuance of this original form of 
baptism (though, perhaps, necessary in our 
northern climates) has rendered obscure to 
popular apprehension some very important 
passages of Scripture. " — Life of St. Paul, p. 439. 

Ulricius Zwinglius on Rom. vi. 3, 4.— 
"When ye were immersed into the water of 
baptism, ye were engrafted into the death of 
Christ : that is, the immersion of your body into 
water was a sign that ye ought to be engrafted 
into Christ and his death, that as Christ died 
and was buried, ye also may be dead to the 
flesh and the old man, that is, to yourselves." 

Philip Limborch — On Baptism. — "Baptism 
then consists in ablution, Or, rather, in the im- 
mersion of the whole body into water. For 
formerly those who were to be baptized were 
accustomed to be immersed with the whole 
body in water." 

Prof. J. A. Turretin on Rom. vi. 3, 4. — 
"And, indeed, baptism was performed in that 
age (the apostolic age), and in those countries, 
by the immersion of the whole body into water. " 

Dr. James McKnight on Rom. vi. 4. — 
"Christ's baptism was not the baptism of re- 
pentance, for he never committed any sin. But 
he submitted to be baptized; that is, to be 



144 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

buried under the water by John, and then 
raised out again." 

William Van Est on Rom. vi. 3. — "For 
immersion represents to us Christ's burial, and 
so also his death. For the tomb is a symbol of 
death, since none but the dead are buried. 
Moreover, the emersion which follows the im- 
mersion has a resemblance to a resurrection. 
We are, therefore, in baptism conformed not 
only to the death of Christ, as he has just said, 
but also to his burial and resurrection." 

Canon Farrar, D.D., F. R. S., "Life of St. 
Paul." — "The life of the Christian being hid 
with Christ in God, his death with Christ is a 
death to sin, his resurrection with Christ is a 
resurrection to life. The dipping tinder the waters 
of baptism is his union with Christ's death; his 
rising out of the waters of baptism is a resurrec- 
tion with Christ and the birth to anew life." 
(Page 480). 

Prof. F. Godet, D.D., on Rom. vi. 3, 4. — 
"Some take the word baptize in its literal sense 
of bathing, plunging, and understand, 'As many 
of you as were plunged into Christ.' . . 'One 
is not plunged into a name, but into water, in 
relation to {eis) a name — that is to say, to the 
new revelation of God expressed in a name.' 
Modern commentators are not at one on the 
question whether the apostle means to allude to 
the external form of the baptismal rite in the 
primitive church. It seems to us very probable 
that it is so, whether primitive baptism be re- 
garded as a complete immersion, during which 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. I45 

the baptized disappeared for a moment under 
water (which best corresponds to the figure of 
burial), or whether the baptized went down into 
the water up to his loins, and the baptizer 
poured the water with which he had filled the 
hollow of his hands over his head, so as to rep- 
resent an immersion. The passage, Mark vii. 
4, where the term baptzsmos, a was Jung, bath, 
lustration, baptism (Heb. vi. 2), is applied not 
only to the cleansing of cups and utensils, ob- 
jects which may be plunged into water, but 
also to that of couches or divans, proves plain- 
ly that we can not insist on the sense of plung- 
ing, and consequently on the idea of total im- 
mersion, being attached to the term baptism. 
It is nevertheless true that in one or the other 
of these forms the going down into the water 
probably represents, in Paul's view, the moral 
burying of the baptized, and his issuing from 
the water his resurrection. The relation be- 
tween the two facts of burial and baptism indi- 
cated by the apostle is this : Burial is the act 
which consummates the breaking of the last tie 
between man and his earthly life. This was 
likewise the meaning of our Lord's entomb- 
ment. Similarly, by baptism there is publicly 
consummated the believer's breaking with the 
life of the present world and with his own nat- 
ural life." 

As to the baptism of couches and divans in 
Mark vii. 4, as an argument against the idea of 
a total immersion in baptism, as urged by this 
10 



I46 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

witness, it is necessary only to remind you that 
in the Revised Version of 1881, there is neither 
couch, divan nor table in the text, and so this old 
objection is utterly exploded, and that, too, 
substantially by pedobaptist authorities. And 
as to his notion of "the baptized" going "down 
into the water up to his loins, and the baptizer" 
pouring "the water with which he had filled 
the hollow of his hands over his head," you 
know perfectly well that it is only an idle 
fancy, used for a purpose — name'y, to help our 
author out of a very tight place. 

H. A. W. Meyer, Th.D., on "Baptism of 
Jailer." — "This (that he led them to a neighbor- 
ing water, perhaps in the court of the house, in 
which his baptism and that of his household was 
immediately completed), is confirmed by the 
fact that baptism took place by complete im- 
mersion, in opposition to Baumgarten, p. 515, 
who, transferring the performance of baptism 
to the house, finds here 'an approximation to 
the later custom of simplifying the ceremony, ' 
according to which complete immersion did not 
take place. Immersion was, in fact, quite an es- 
sential part of the symbolism of baptism. " (Rom. 
vi.) — Commentary on Acts, Note. 

The italics in the last sentence of this quota- 
tion are mine. This witness is certainly com- 
petent. Dr. Gloag calls him, "The greatest 
modern exegete." Dr. Ormiston says: "No 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. I47 

name is entitled to take precedence of that of 
Meyer as a critical exegete, and it would be 
difficult to find one that equals him in the 
happy combination of superior learning with 
keen penetration, analytical power and clear, 
terse, vigorous expression. . . So impartial 
and candid is he, that he never allows his own 
peculiar views to color or distort his interpreta- 
tions of the language of Scripture." 

Philip Schaff, D.D., on Rom, vi. 4. — "All 
commentators of note (except St?mrt and Hodge) 
expressly admit, or take it for granted that, in 
this verse, .... the ancient prevailing 
mode of baptism, by immersion and emersion, 
is implied as giving additional force to the idea 
of the going down of the old and the rising up 
of the new man. Bloomfield : 'There is a 
plain allusion to the ancient mode of baptism 
by immersion; on which, see Suicer's Thes. and 
Bingham's Antiquities.' Barnes: 'It is alto- 
gether probable that the apostle has allusion to 
the custom of baptizing by immersion. ' Cony- 
beare and Howson : 'This passage can not be 
understood, unless it be borne in mind that the 
primitive baptism was by immersion. ' Webster 
and Wilkinson : 'Doubtless there is an allusion 
to immersion, as the usual mode of baptism, 
introduced to show that baptism symbolized 



I48 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

our spiritual resurrection.' Compare also 
Bengel, Riickert, Tholuck, Meyer. The ob- ' 
jection of Philippi (who, however, himself re- 
gards this allusion probable in verse 4), that, in 
this case, the apostles would have expressly 
mentioned the symbolic act, has no force in 
view of the daily practice of baptism." — Com- 
mentary of Lang e, Note. 

Here we have the testimony of a great host 
of witnesses, including Langej Schaff, Bloom- 
field, Suicer, Bingham, Barnes, Conybeare, 
Howson, Webster, Wilkinson, Bengel, Riick- 
ert, Tholuck, Meyer, Philippi, and, indeed, 
all commentators of note — except two — that in 
Rom. vi. 4, the apostle alludes to baptism by 
immersion, calling it a burial with Christ, 
thereby "giving additional force to the idea of 
the going down of the old and the rising up of the 
new man." And this great array of witnesses 
establishes incontestably the fact that, in the 
days of the apostles, immersion was the prevail- 
ing mode of baptism. It was, then, these writers 
being judges, the apostolic mode, and therefore 
must have been the mode that our Lord insti- 
tuted among his people by an explicit command, 
reinforced by his own amazing example. That 
it was the only mode then known in the 
churches of Christ is evident from two considera- 



THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. I49 

tions : First, all who were baptized at all were 
buried with him by baptism, and if any were thus 
buried with him by immersion, then, of neces- 
sity, all were, since in a symbolical burial the 
one symbol is as needful for one as for another ; 
and, second, the only explanation of the apos- 
tolic practice of immersion must be the com- 
mand of the Master, and we can not conceive of 
the apostles as departing, in any case, from the 
thing commanded by our Lord. 

Back of the authority of the apostles in their 
baptismal practice is the command of Christ ; 
and both remain to this day unchanged. If, 
then, immersion was duty in apostolic times, 
it is also duty now, and he who substitutes for 
it some other way need not wonder if devout 
disciples of Christ demand his authority. 

All that Dr. Schaffsays about the use immer- 
sionists make of Rom. vi. 4, and about the 
necessity of an emersion following the immer- 
sion, together with his remarks about the sub- 
stitution of immersion for baptism in the 
English Bible, is a sample of special pleading 
altogether unworthy his reputation as a great 
Christian scholar. No advocate of immersion 
thinks of urging Rom. vi. 4, as a command to 
immerse, but as containing such an allusion to it 
as fairly demonstrates that immersion is the apos- 



I50 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

tolic baptism, and, therefore, the baptism that 
our Lord requires ; and the first of these facts 
being conceded by our pedobaptist friends 
generally, the second must also be admitted, 
or the apostles must be convicted of rank diso- 
bedience to Christ — a task which all good 
pedobaptists will be very slow to undertake. 

As for the necessity of emersion as an essen- 
tial part of apostolic baptism, I am quite sure 
that all Baptists are aware of it. In every case 
of apostolic baptism such emersion is emphasized, 
and that is one of the strong reasons for adher- 
ing to the Bible ordinance in its primitive form 
and simplicity. 

Why Dr. SchafT should consider the term im- 
mersion, which is an exact equivalent of the 
Greek baptizo, a one-sided and secular word, is 
not exactly clear to ordinary mortals, unless it 
is because it would expose at a glance the utter 
unscripturalness of sprinkling. It is true that 
the substitution of immersion for baptism would 
give a view of the ordinance that might be truth- 
fully described as a "negative," and a very de- 
cided one, of the practice of sprinkling. That 
1 'baptism and the corresponding verb" have 
long been ' 'naturalized in the English language, " 
no one denies; but, as Dr. SchafTis well aware, 
and as you also know perfectly well, they did 






THE SYMBOLISM OF BAPTISM. 15 I 

not bring with them their old Greek sense. Prac- 
tically, they are new English words, with new, 
technical English meanings — in no sense an 
equivalent of the Greek. 

To compare the naturalization of baptism and 
baptize in English, with their new meanings, to 
the transfer of such words as Christ, apostle, 
angel, etc., which retain in English their old 
Greek sense, may be shrewd, but it is certainly 
neither scholarly nor transparently honest. It 
is a trick worthy a tenth-rate pettifogger, but 
sadly out of place in a stately commentary on 
the word of God. Its only use is to mislead ig- 
norant or too-confiding readers by a statement 
true in the letter of it, but false in the impression 
intended to be conveyed by it. But thoughtful 
people who earnestly desire to know and do 
the truth will hardly be deceived so easily. 
They will be apt, however, to agree with the 
learned author of the article that, "Immersion 
is, undoubtedly, a more expressive form than 
sprinkling" and finding in his own statements a 
very conclusive proof that it is also a more legiti- 
mate and scriptural form, they will be slow to ac- 
cept a doubtful invention of men in its place. 
And they will not need a prophet to convince 
them that an innovation which, by changing 
the form of an ordinance, destroys its symbolic 



152 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

meaning, does very seriously impair the efficacy 
of that ordinance as a divinely-ordained object 
lesson in vital Christian truth. And it may be 
that, going a little further, they may conclude 
very wisely that "to obey is better than sacrifice," 
and so come to the safe and dutiful resolution 
to reject those indifferent and useless forms that 
men have contrived, and adhere firmly and 
reverently to those which divine wisdom has 
planned and divine authority has prescribed ; 
and, you know that would make them straight- 
out, loyal Baptists. Such things have often oc- 
curred in the past, and they are occuring now, 
and doubtless they will continue to occur in the 
future. Yours, . 



INFANT BAPTISM. 1 53 



VIII. 

INFANT BAPTISM. 



"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it 
giveth understanding unto the simple." — Psalmist. 

My Dear Brother : — I have read very many 
prosy volumes, written in defense of infant bap- 
tism, in search of some legitimate argument in 
support of the practice. I have not found it. 
Special pleading I have found, and not a few 
sophisms, many of them too transparent to de- 
ceive any one, and others artful and quite 
plausible, yet really "baseless as the visions of 
the night." If there is a defense of infant bap- 
tism rising to the dignity of a solid, forcible 
argument, I have not met with it. Confessedly 
there is no "Thus saith the Lord" enjoining it, 
nor one single example in the Word of God to 
give it sanction. And yet many great denomi- 
nations of Protestants, who claim to be Bible 
Christians, persistently continue the practice of it. 
They say, "The Bible is our only and sufficient 



154 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. . 

rule of faith and practice in all matters of doc- 
trine and of duty;" "The Bible is the religion 
of Protestantism ; " but at the same time they 
cling to a Romish practice, which has no 
warrant in the Scriptures. 

This is a fatal inconsistency in a vital matter. 
You may retort that no man is perfect ; that the 
very best people are inconsistent in many things ; 
and that those who are themselves confessedly 
somewhat imperfect ought to be lenient toward 
the imperfections of their friends ; or you may 
remind me that every denomination has its 
own peculiar traditions and usages ; and you 
may intimate very broadly that if other people 
do not like the usages of this or that church, it 
is their privilege to let it alone ; and that you 
have the same right to baptize babes that I have 
to refuse to baptize them ; though I have too 
high an opinion of your intelligence and good 
sense to suppose that you will think of urging 
considerations so indefensible. But the fact re- 
mains that some do press just such empty ex- 
cuses for an unscriptural practice. As a matter 
of civil right — right guaranteed by the laws of 
the land — your right to sprinkle babes is ex- 
actly as great, and as secure, as my right to re- 
fuse to sprinkle them. And all true Baptists 
rejoice in that religious liberty which their Bap- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 155 

tist fathers were so largely instrumental in 
securing, and which, as Baptists, we will be 
among the last to impair, surrender or destroy. 
But though, in our opposite practices in re- 
spect to infant baptism, we have an equal civil 
right, yet morally, we can not both be equally 
right. If infant baptism is a scriptural ordi- 
nance, then I am doing a great wrong in dis- 
crediting it and in refusing to practice it. But, 
on the other hand, if it be not a scriptural prac- 
tice, all pedobaptists are doing at least an equal 
wrong in adhering to it. I have no moral right 
to refuse to do anything that the Scriptures 
plainly enjoin, and you have just as little, right 
to do, in the name of the Lord, anything that he 
has not authorized you to do. And that which 
is true of men individually, in this matter, is 
equally true of churches and of denominations. 
No church or denomination has the slightest 
right to adopt or retain any religious ordinance 
whatever, as a matter of tradition, or as an in- 
heritance from the Fathers. Whatever the 
Divine Word requires, that, and that only, may 
they rightfully do ; and if, in any church or de- 
nomination, any unscriptural usage exists, it is 
the immediate duty of that people to desist 
from it. The fair presumption is, that our 
Lord is wiser than men, than even the best and 



I56 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

the wisest of men ; and that it is the plain, 
simple duty of all his disciples not to mend or 
change his precepts and ordinances, but care- 
fully and religiously to observe and obey them. 
And if any section of the great body of pro- 
fessed disciples of Christ do otherwise, and do 
so intentionally and persistently, then it justly 
becomes a matter of legitimate concern to all 
the rest of the great company of the redeemed. 
And since we are not to "suffer sin upon our 
brother," those who are aware of the wrong- 
doing are bound to protest against it, and to 
exhort those who are engaged in it to desist. 
For the Christian pilgrimage is not a sort of 
"happy-go-lucky" picnic, in which each man is 
a law to himself; nor is it a "go-as-you-please" 
tramp, but a well-defined race, in which every 
one, who strives for the crown, must conform 
to the regulations prescribed by the Master. 
And a genuine obedience is of more value in 
his sight, than any number of "usages" or 
"ceremonies" invented by men, though they 
may be very beautiful and pathetic, and though 
they were contrived, and have been perpetuated, 
with the most laudable motives. Indeed, he 
declares that "to obey is better than sacrifice," 
even when that sacrifice is legitimate. 

Nor can the absence of such obedience be ex- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 157 

cused, in this case, on the plea of human imper- 
fection ; ,for it is not the result of any lack of 
ability. Certainly, those who practice infant 
baptism could refrain from it if they would. It 
is not a matter of infirmity, but of deliberate 
choice. They do it without scriptural warrant, 
just because they want to do it ; or because it 
is the custom of their church ; or because it is 
fashionable ; or because, failing to do it, they 
would be subjected to criticism ; or because of 
some fancied good that may come of doing it. 

A case, illustrating this last class of motives 
for infant baptism, occurred some years ago, in 
an Eastern State. I repeat it as it was related 
to me by a friend — a man of unquestioned 
worth and piety. 

An honest, industrious German farmer went 
to his neighbor, an aged Baptist minister, and 
asked permission to use his spring-wagon for a 
trip to town next day. The minister instantly 
granted his request; and then, knowing that his 
German friend was noted as a ' 'keeper-at-home, " 
he ventured to inquire the nature of his errand 
to the city. 

"Veil, den," was the reply, "I goes dere 
shoost to haf dem dwins papdized, so dey vont 
pe so gross. Dey shoost gries unt gries all der 
dime, unt mine vife, she vos dired oud mit der 



I58 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

grossness. Ven der briest papdize dem, dey 
vill pe no more so pad." 

"Why, my friend," said the minister, "bap- 
tizing them will not stop their crying. They 
will be just as cross after they are baptized as 
they are now. You are quite welcome to the 
use of my wagon, but you are foolish to go so 
far on such an errand. You would be wiser to 
stay at home .and attend to your work. Bap- 
tism will not do your twins any good whatever. " 

"Veil," said the German, "das is vot you 
dinks aboud im, unt you haf alvays peen mine 
vrent, unt von goot und kint napor ; pud der 
papdism vas shoost so pedder as der tochter's 
bills vor dem gross dwins, unt I dry im." 

So the next day he took the twins to town, 
and the priest, with all due gravity, sprinkled 
them. He returned home, in the confident 
assurance that, as he told his Baptist neighbor, 
when he returned the wagon: "Dem dwins 
don't liefer got so gross some more dill dey got 

Pig-" 

Take two more illustrations of the same 
motives : A few months ago, a well-dressed 
lady, a resident of this city, called upon me, 
bringing with her a very feeble-looking bab^, 
about two months old. She gravely and earnest- 
ly requested me to baptize it, saying that it had 



INFANT BAPTISM. 159 

"decay of the flesh," and that the "old man" 
told her he could not cure it, as medicine would 
not take effect upon it until it had been bap- 
tized. I tried very earnestly, but apparently 
with very poor success, to show her the folly of 
supposing that baptism would have any effect 
upon the medicine, or the disease ; or that it 
could, in any way, promote the cure of the 
babe. And I also endeavored to convince her 
that infant baptism is neither scriptural nor 
beneficial ; but she "went away sorrowful," and 
in search of a more compliant minister. The 
result of her search I have never learned. 

Subsequently, another lady called at my 
residence on a similar errand. Her babe, as 
she informed my daughter, for I was absent, 
had the ' 'go-backs, " whatever that may be, and 
she wanted it baptized, so that medicine would 
take effect. 

My friend, Rev. Mr. S— — , an able pedo- 
baptist minister, to whom I related these circum- 
stances, told me that such superstitious notions 
of baptism are quite common among a certain 
class of our German people. He did not seem 
at all surprised at my experiences in the matter, 
but seemed to regard it as a very common affair — 
a thing to be expected as a matter of course. 
He said they often called upon him to baptize 



160 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

their babes, so that medicine would take effect 
upon them. But he assured me that he had 
never complied with such requests. I honor 
him for his refusal to minister to such super- 
stitions, and yet I must confess that, in my own 
opinion, baptizing children for the "go-backs" 
has in it the merit of a definite purpose. It 
proposes an end, and a very desirable one, the 
cure of a dangerous malady, and those who 
make such use of it, might, with much pro- 
priety, urge in defense of their action, the same 
reason recently urged by a political partisan in 
this region in favor of the election of the can- 
didate of his party to the Legislature of the 
State, viz. : "He is not good for anything else, 
and surely he ought to be a good legislator." 
"Infant baptism," they might well exclaim, 
"infant baptism is not good for anything else, 
and certainly it ought to put a stop to the go- 
backs." And I am not sure that this notion is 
so much more superstitious than the entire 
practice of infant baptism, for that practice 
originated, not in the word of God, but in ex- 
aggerated and superstitious ideas of baptism, 
which was supposed to possess some sort of 
magical power, as I will presently prove by the 
testimony of many eminent and unimpeachable 
pedobaptist witnesses. It arose, not in Palestine, 



INFANT BAPTISM. l6l 

in the days of Christ or of his apostles, but in 
the churches of Alexandria and of North Africa, 
long after the apostles had ceased from their 
labors, and had entered into their refreshment 
and reward in the better land. And its origin 
and final establishment were due, not to any 
apostolic precept or example, but to the heretic- 
al and deadly notion that baptism is indispensa- 
ble to the salvation of each human soul, and 
that without it no human being can be saved. 
I have already presented to you a mass of 
evidence, proving by pedobaptist witnesses 
that infant baptism and sprinkling are not of 
the Bible. The article of Rev. J. Jacobi on 
"Baptism," from which I quoted in my letter 
on the " Testimony of the Encyclopedias," assures 
us that "infant baptism was established neither 
by Christ nor by his apostles." And in this 
statement he is supported by his friend, the 
great Neander, and by a host of the most com- 
petent pedobaptist writers. In these letters I 
propose to prove conclusively that infant bap- 
tism is not an apostolic institution , and I will 
produce pedobaptist witnesses of the highest 
character, witnesses that no man can impeach, 
to show its origin in the gross darkness and 
heresy that regarded baptism as a charm, and 
applied it to unconscious babes, that thereby 
n .- ■ . 



1 62 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

they might be permitted to enter heaven. 
Some people sneer at the Baptists, and say, 
"There are no babes in the Baptist Churches." 
But Baptists do not think baptism essential to 
salvation ; they regard it not as a saving ordi- 
nance, but only as a confessing ordinance, and, 
therefore, they do not apply it to infants, who 
are saved without it, and who are not fitted to 
make the solemn and responsible confession in- 
separable from it. 

Erasmus — "It is nowhere expressed in the 
apostolic writings that they baptized children." 

Dr. Knapp — "There is no decisive example 
of infant baptism in the Scriptures." 

Bishop Burnet — "There is no express pre- 
cept or rule given in the New Testament for 
the baptism of infants." 

Is it not strange that the New Testament 
should be silent respecting a gospel ordinance? 
Is it not incredible? 

Curcell^eus — "The custom of baptizing 
infants did not begin before the third age after 
Christ was born. In the former ages no trace 
of it appears. . . It was introduced without 
the command of Christ, and, therefore, this 
rite (infant baptism) is observed by us as an 
ancient custom, but .not as an apostolical 
tradition." 

Olshausen — "There is altogether wanting 
any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of 



INFANT BAPTISM. I63 

children, in the age of the apostles, nor can 
any necessity for it be deduced from the nature 
of baptism." 

Dr. Leonard Woods — Infant Baptism. — 
''Whatever may have been the precepts of 
Christ, or of his apostles, to those who enjoyed 
their personal instructions, it is plain that there 
is no express precept respecting infant baptism 
in our sacred writings. The proof, then, that 
infant baptism is a divine institution must be 
made out in another way. ... I can by no 
means admit, as I intimated in a previous lec- 
ture, that the New Testament does not contain 
anything which fairly implies infant baptism. 
Still, it is evident that infant baptism is not in- 
troduced as a subject of particular discussion in 
the New Testament; that it is neither explicitly 
enjoined nor prohibited, and that neither the 
practice of baptizing children, nor the absence 
of such a practice is expressly mentioned." 
(Pages 11 and 105). 

Georg Eduard Steitz, D. D. — Schaff- 
Herzog Ency. — Art. Bapt. — "There is no 
trace of infant baptism in the New Testament. 
All attempts to deduce it from the words of 
institution, or from such passages as 1 Cor. i. 
16, must be given up as arbitrary. Indeed, 1 
Cor. vii. 14, 'For the unbelieving husband is 
sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife 
is sanctified in the husband; else were your 
children unclean, but now are they holy/ rules 
out decisively all such deductions ; for, if pedo- 
baptism were taught by Paul, he would have 



164 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

linked the salvation of the children with their 
baptism, and not with the faith of their 
parents. . . . Sponsors were probably unknown 
before the existence of infant baptism ; with them 
also came in a special liturgy. ... In the 
early Church preparation preceded baptism. 
. . . . Terttdlian, De Bapt. y Chap. XX., says: 
' They who are about to enter baptism ought 
to pray. . . . With the confession of all by- 
gone sins. ' . . . Great eirfphasis was early laid 
upon baptism. It was the condition of salva- 
tion — it gave pardon of sin, and imparted 
righteousness. . . . However correct may have 
been the views of the leaders of the Church, it 
is certain that the church-members entertained 
very erroneous notions. They ascribed to 
baptism a magical efficacy, and particularly the 
cleansing from sin, entirely irrespective of the 
religious state of the recipient; indeed, from 
the beginning of the fourth century the sad 
custom too widely prevailed of postponing 
baptism as long as possible, even to the death- 
hour, so that the recipient might continue his 
lax life, and by this one act get rid of all the past 

sins, and enter heaven perfectly pure 

. . . Baptism was considered indispensable to 
salvation. . . . Infant baptism came in quite 
naturally as the consequent of the belief in the 
necessity of baptism." 

Rev. A. T. Bledsoe, D.D., LL.D.— "It is 
an article of our faith (Methodist Episcopal), 
that the baptism of young children (infants) is 
in any wise to be retained in the Church, as 



INFANT BAPTISM. 1 65 

most agreeable to the institution of CJirist. But 
yet, with all our searching, we have been un- 
able to find in the New Testament a single ex- 
press declaration or word in favor of infant bap- 
tism. We justify the right, therefore, solely on 
the ground of logical inference ; and not on any 
express word of Christ or his apostles. This 
may, perhaps, be deemed, by some of our 
readers, a strange position for a pedobaptist. 
It is by no means, however, a singular opinion. 
Hundreds of learned pe dob aptists have come to the 
same conclusion, especially since the New Testa- 
ment has been subjected to a closer, more con- 
scientious, and more candid exegesis than was 
formerly practiced by controversialists. In 
Knapp's Theology, for example, it is said : 
'There is no decisive example of this practice 
in the New Testament ; for it may be objected 
against those passages where the baptism of the 
whole families is mentioned, viz.. Acts x, 42-48 ; 
xvi. 15-33, 1 Cor. i. 16, that it is doubtful 
whether there were any children in those families, 
and if there were, whether they were then bap- 
tized. From- the passage Matt, xxviii. 19, it 
does not necessarily follow that Christ com- 
manded infant baptism the Matheteusate is 
neither for nor against); nor does this follow 
any more from John iii. 5, and Mark x. 14-16. 
There is, therefore, no express command for 
infant baptism found in the New Testament, as 
Morus (p. 215, % 12) justly concedes, ' (Vol. 2, 
p. 524). Dr. Jacob also says: 'However reason- 
ably we may be convinced that we find in the 



1 66 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

Christian Scriptures the fundamental idea from 
which infant baptism was afterward developed, 
and by which it may now be justified, it ought 
to be distinctly acknowledged that it is not an 
apostolic ordinance.' In like manner, or to the 
same effect, Neander says : 'Originally, baptism 
was administered to adults ; nor is the general 
spread of infant baptism, at a later period, any 
proof to the contrary; for even after infant bap- 
tism had been set forth as an apostolic institu- 
tion, its introduction into the general practice- 
of the church was but slow. Had it rested on 
apostolic authority, there would have been a 
difficulty in explaining its late approval, and 
that, even in the third century, it was opposed 
by at least one eminent Father of the Church* 
(p. 229). 

' 'We quote this passage, not because its 
logic does, in every respect, carry conviction to 
our mind, but simply to show how completely 
Neander co?icedes the point, that infant baptism is 
not an apostolic ordinance. We might, if neces- 
sary, adduce the admission of many other pro- 
foundly learned pedobaptists that their doctrine 
is not found in the New Testament, either in ex- 
press terms, or by implication, from any portion of 
its language" — Southern Review, Vol. 14. 

This testimony, from one of the most eminent 
of American Methodists, was quoted by Dr. 
Graves, in his debate with that champion of 
pedobaptism, Dr. Ditzler, of the Methodist Epis 
copal Church (South), and the correctness of 



INFANT BAPTISM. l6? 

the quotation was not questioned or denied. I 
take it from the report of that debate, published 
with the knowledge and concurrence of Dr. 
Ditzler. It is explicit and conclusive. What- 
ever else infant baptism may, or may not be, it 
is neither an apostolic nor a New Testament 
ordinance, in the judgment of hundreds of 'learned 
pedobaptists. 

Now, permit me to place before you the 
testimony of an earnest Lutheran writer, an ex- 
positor whose praise is in all the ends of Chris- 
tendom, a man whom his fellow-expositors de- 
light to honor as li the prince of ' exegetes :" 

H. A. W. Meyer, Th.D., on Acts xvi. 15. 
— ' 'Of what members her family (Lydia's) con- 
sisted can not be determined. This passage 
and verse 33, with xviii. 8, and 1 Cor. i. 16, 
are appealed to in order to prove infant baptism 
in the apostolic age, or at least to make it 
probable. . . But on this question the fol- 
lowing remarks are to be made : 

"1. If, in the Jewish and Gentile families, 
which were converted to Christ, there were 
children, their baptism is to be assumed in those 
cases when they were so far advanced that they 
could and did confess tlieir faith on Jesus as the 
Messiah ; for this was the universal, absolutely 
necessary qualification for the reception of baptism. 

"2. If, on the other hand, there were chil- 
dren still incapable of confessing, baptism could 



1 68 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

not be administered to those to whom that 
which was the necessary presupposition of bap- 
tism for Christian sanctifi cation was still want- 
ing. 

"3. Such young children, whose parents 
were Christians, rather fell under the point of 
view of 1 Cor. vii. 14, according to which, in 
conformity with the view of the apostolic church, 
the children of Christians were no longer re- 
garded as akathartoi (unclean), but as hagioi 
(holy), and that not on the footing of having re- 
ceived the character of holiness by baptism, but 
as having part in the Christian hagiotes by their 
fellowship with their Christian parents. . . . 
Besides, the circumcision of children must have 
been retained for a considerable time among 
the Jewish Christians, according to xxi. 21. 
Therefore, 

"4. The baptism of the children of Christians, 
of which no trace ts found in the New Testament, 
is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance, as, in- 
deed, it encountered early and long resistance ; 
but it is an institution of the church, which grad- 
ually arose in post-apostolic times, in connec- 
tion with the development of ecclesiastical life 
and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested 
before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly 
opposed ; and, although already defended by 
Cyprian, only becoming general after the time 
of Augustine, in virtue of that connection. Yet, 
even apart from the ecclesiastical premiss of a 
stern doctrine of original sin, and of the devil, 
going beyond Scripture, from which even ex- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 1 69 

orcism arose, the continued mainte7iance of in- 
fant baptism, as the objective attribution of 
spiritually creative grace in virtue of the plan 
of salvation established for every individual in 
the fellowship of the church, is so much the 
more justified, as this objective attribution takes 
place with a view to the future subjective appro- 
priation. And this subjective appropriation has 
so necessarily to emerge with the development 
of self-consciousness and of knowledge through 
faith, that in default thereof the church would 
have to recognize in the baptized no true mem- 
bers, but only membra mortua (dead members). 
This relation of connection with creative grace, 
in so far as the church is its sphere of operation, 
is a theme which, in presence of the attacks of 
Baptists and Rationalists, must overstep the 
domain of exegesis, and be worked out in that 
of dogmatics, yet without the addition of con- 
firmation as any sort of supplement to baptism. " 

In other words, infant baptism, not being in 
the word of God, can not be established by the 
exposition of that Word, but must be defended 
by dogmatic assertions of some occult theory 
of salvation by virtue of one's relation to the 
church. But this defense, lame and unscrip- 
tural as it is, is not entitled to urge "confirma- 
tion as any sort of supplement to baptism." 
That is pretty good. Our author frankly con- 
fesses that, if the baptized infant should fail, in 
after years, to appropriate creative grace, the 



1 70 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

church must recognize in him only a dead 'member. 
Then it follows that the baptized infant is, by- 
its baptism, made a dead member of the church 
to begin with. Is it not possible that the 
formalism and general godlessness of all State 
Churches is due to this fact ? I commend the 
problem to you as one of grave import, — one 
that challenges the attention of every honest 
pedobaptist. But do not fail to note the state- 
ment of this ' 'prince of exegetes," that there is 
not a trace of infant baptism in the New Testa- 
ment, and extract from it just as much comfort 
as you can. 

Rev. Wm. Ormiston, D.D., LL.D., the 
American editor of the edition of Meyer, from 
which I quote says, in a note on this passage: 

"This verse (15th) has often been quoted as 
evidence that infant baptism was the practice 
of the apostolic age. Commentators are di- 
vided in opinion on the force of the evidence 
afforded. The passage, in itself , can not be ad- 
duced either for or against infant baptism. It 
might be a presumption in favor of it. The 
practice itself rests on firmer ground than a pre- 
carious induction from a few ambiguous pas- 
sages. Plumptre : /The subject, however, 
does not properly fall under the domain of ex- 
egesis, but must be, as Meyer says, worked out 
in that of dogmatics. ' " 



INFANT BAPTISM. I/I 

There, that is a handsome and dignified way. 
.of backing down. Oh, the practice is not in 
the Scriptures — not a trace of it in the New 
Testament — but it rests on firm grounds, yes, 
on much "firmer grounds than a precarious in- 
duction from a few ambiguous passages." Poor, 
dear brethren, they boast and run — boast as 
they run — and cover an ignominious defeat 
with loud bragging about a change of base. 
That shows pluck, grand pluck — courage worthy 
a better cause, heroic, but — not apostolic. I 
like not to follow such leaders in a warfare and 
a retreat so utterly unscriptural. 

So much is said by certain pedobaptist writers 
about I Cor. vii. 14, as a warrant for baptizing 
infants, that I desire to lay before you an ex- 
position of that passage by that eminent Presby- 
terian divine, the late Albert Barnes. I tran- 
scribe it from his Notes on the place. 

"Else were your children unclean (akathartd) . 
Impure, the opposite of what is meant by holy. 
Here observe (1), that this is a reason why the 
parents, one of whom was a Christian and the 
other not, should not be separated ; and (2) the 
reason is founded on the fact that, if they were 
separated, the offspring of such a union must be 
regarded as illegitimate or unholy ; and (3) it 
must be improper to separate in such a way, 
and for such a reason, because even they did not 



172 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

believe, and could not believe, that the} chil- 
dren were defiled and polluted, and subi zct to 
the shame and disgrace attending illegitimate 
children. . . . This passage has often been 
interpreted, and is often adduced, to prove that 
children are 'federally holy, ' and that they are 
entitled to the privilege of baptism on the 
ground of the faith of one of the parents. But 
against this interpretation there are insuperable 
objections: (1) The phrase 'federally holy' is 
unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great 
mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scrip- 
tures, and what can be meant by it? (2) It 
does not accord with the scope and design 
of the argument. There is not one word about 
baptism hei'e : not one allusion to it; nor does the 
argument in the remotest degree bear tipon it. The 
question was not whether children should be bap- 
tized, but it was whether there should be a 
separation between man and wife, where the 
one was a Christian and the other not. Paul 
states that, if such a separation should take place, 
it would imply that the marriage was improper ; 
and of course the children must be regarded as 
unclean. 

' 'But how would the supposition that they were 
federally holy, and the proper subjects of bap- 
tism, bear on this? Would it not be equally 
true that it was proper to baptize the children 
whether the parents were separated or not ? Is 
it not a doctrine among pedobaptists every- 
where, that the children are entitled to baptism 
on the faith of either of the parents, and that 



INFANT BAPTISM. 1 73 

that doctrine is not affected by the question 
here agitated by Paul ? Whether it was proper 
for them to live together or not, was it not 
equally true that the child of a believing parent 
was to be baptized ? But (3) the supposition 
that this means that the children would be re- 
garded as illegitimate, if such a separation should 
take place, is one that accords with the whole 
scope and design of the argument. 'When 
one party is a Christian and the other not, shall 
there be a separation ?' This was the question. 
'No', says Paul; 'if there be such a separation, 
it must be because the marriage is improper ; 
because it would be wrong to live together in 
such circumstances.' 

"What would follow from this? Why, that 
all the children that have been born since the 
one party became a Christian must be regarded 
as having been born while a connection existed 
that was improper, and unchristian, and unlaw- 
ful, and, of course, they must be regarded as 
illegitimate. 'But,' he says, 'you do not be- 
lieve this yourselves. It follows, therefore, 
that the connection, even according to your own 
view, is proper.' (4) This accords with the 
meaning of the word unclean {akatharta). It 
properly denotes that which is impure, defiled, 
idolatrous ; unclean (a) in a Levitical sense (Lev. 
v. 2), (b) in a moral sense (Acts x. 28, 2 Cor. 
vi. 17, and Eph. v. 5). The word will appro- 
priately express the sense of illegitimacy ; and 
the argument, I think, evidently requires this. 
It may be summed up in a few words : 'Your 



174 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

separation would be a proclamation to all, that 
you regard the marriage as invalid and im- 
proper. From this, it would follow that the 
offspring of such a marriage would be illegiti- 
mate. But you are not prepared to admit this; 
you do not believe it. Your children you 
esteem to.be legitimate, and they are so. The 
marriage tie, therefore, should be regarded as 
binding, and separation unnecessary and im- 
proper.' T believe infant bap- 
tism to be proper and right, and an inestimable 
privilege to parents and to children. But a 
good cause should not be made to rest on feeble 
supports, nor on a forced and unnatural inter- 
pretation of Scripture. And such I regard the 
usual interpretation placed on this passage.' " 

Now, my dear brother, what have you to 
offer against these learned pedobaptist witnesses? 
Can you refute their testimony? Hundreds of 
them, men ofprofound learning, tell us that infant 
baptism is not taught in the New Testament, either 
directly or by implication. They solemnly assure 
us that it is not an apostolic institution, that it 
rose in an age subsequent to that of the apos- 
tles, that it spread very slowly at first, and that 
it did not become the general practice of the 
churches until ages after the death of the apos- 
tles. Can you prove such testimony false ? If 
you can not, then why persist in the unscriptural 
practice ? Is it not safer to be apostolic in your 
ways ? Yours, . 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 75 



IX. 

HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 



"If the light that is in fliee be darkness, how 
great is that darkness!" — Jesus. 

My Dear Brother: — I am quite willing to 
rest the argument against infant baptism on the 
simple, unvarnished history of its origin, written 
and published by the greatest among pedobap- 
tist historians of the Church, Dr. Augustus 
Neander. As you may not have his great 
work at hand, I will transcribe his account of 
the origin of infant baptism, or, rather, so 
much of it as will place the whole matter 
fairly before you- I quote from his Church 
History. He says: 

' ' Baptism, at first, was administered only to 
adults, as men were accustomed to conceive 
baptism and faith as strictly connected. There 
does not appear to be any reason for deriving 
infant baptism from an apostolical institution ; 
and the recognition of it, which followed some- 
what later, as an apostolic tradition, serves to 



Ij6 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

confirm this hypothesis. Irenaus [in second 
century — EdJ\ is the first Father of the Church 
in whom we find any allusion to infant baptism ; 
and in his mode of expressing himself on the 
subject, he implies at the same time its connec- 
tion with the essence of the Christian conscious- 
ness, and testifies to the profound Christian idea 
out of which infant baptism arose, and which 
finally procured its universal recognition. 

' ' trenails wishes to show that Christ did not 
disturb the development of that human nature 
which was to be sanctified by him, but sancti- 
fied it in all the several stages of its natural 
course. He came to redeem all by himself; 
all who, through him, are born again unto God 
— infants, little children, boys, young men and 
old. Therefore he passed through every age: 
for the infants he became an infant, sanctifying 
the infants; among the little children he became 
a little child, to sanctify those who are of this 
age, and at the same time to present to them 
an example of piety, uprightness and obedi- 
dence; among the young men he became a 
young man, that he might set them an example 
and sanctify them to the Lord. 

"It is. here especially important to observe 
that infants (infantes) are expressly distin- 
guished from children (parvulis,) and that 
Christ could also benefit them by his example ; 
and that they are represented as capable of re- 
ceiving from Christ, who had also lived through 
their period of life, simply an objective sancti- 
fication. This sanctification is imparted to 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. I J J 

them, in so far as they are born again to God 
through Christ. 

' ' Now, in the mind of Irenceus, regeneration 
and baptism are intimately connected ; and it is 
difficult to conceive how the term, 'being born 
again,' can be employed with respect to this 
age, to denote anything else than baptism. 
Infant baptism, then, appears here (in the 
opinion of Irenceus) to be the medium through 
which the principle of sanctincation, imparted 
by Christ to human nature from its earliest 
development, became appropriated to children. 
The very idea of infant baptism implies that 
Christ, through the divine life which he 
imparted to and revealed in human nature, 
sanctified that nature from its earliest germ. 
The child born in a Christian family was to 
have this advantage ; that he did not first come 
to Christianity out of heathenism, or the 
natural life of sin, but that, from the first 
dawning of consciousness, he should grow up 
under the imperceptible, preventing influences 
of a sanctifying, ennobling Christianity; that, 
in short, from the earliest dawn of the natural 
consciousness, a divine principle of life, capable 
of transforming nature, should be brought nigh 
to him, by which the divine portion might be 
attracted and strengthened before the ungodly 
principle could come into full activity, so that 
the latter might at once find here more than a 
counterpoise. In such a case, the new birth 
was not to constitute a new crisis, beginning at 
some definable moment, but it was to com- 
12 



I78 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

mence imperceptibly, and so to continue 
through the whole life. Baptism, therefore, 
the ' visible sign of regeneration, was to be 
given to the child at the very outset; the child 
was to be consecrated to the Redeemer from 
the beginning of its life. From the predomi- 
nance of this idea, founded on the inmost 
essence of Christianity, i?i the feelings of Chris- 
tians, resulted the practice of infant baptism. 

' ' But immediately after Irenceus, in the last 
years of the second century, Tertullian appears 
as a zealous opponent of infant baptism; a 
proof that the practice was not universally re- 
garded as an apostolical institution ; for other- 
wise Tertullian would hardly have ventured to 
express himself so strongly against it. We 
perceive from his argument against infant bap- 
tism, that its advocates were already accus- 
tomed to appeal to Matt. xix. 14: 'Our Lord 
rejected not the little children, but commanded 
them to be brought to him that he might bless 
them.' Tertullian advises that, in considera- 
tion of the great importance of this rite, and 
of the preparation necessary to be made for it on 
the part of the recipieitts, men generally should 
rather delay baptism than hasten to it unpre- 
pared; and he takes occasion here to declare 
his particular objection to haste in the baptism 
of children. In answer to the argument for it, 
drawn from Christ's words, he replies: 'Let 
them come while they are growing up; let 
them come while they are learning, while they 
are being taught to what they are coming ; but 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. \jg 

let them be made Christians when they are 
able to know Christ. What hurries the age of 
innocence to the forgiveness of sins? We 
show more prudence in the management of our 
worldly concerns ; we trust the divine treasure 
to those who can not be entrusted with earthly 
property. Let them first learn to feel their 
need of salvation; so it may appear that we 
have given to those that wanted. ' 

"Tertullian evidently means that children 
should be led to Christ by instructing them in 
Christianity; but that they should not receive 
baptism until, after having been sufficiently in- 
structed, they are led, from personal convic- 
tion, and by their own free choice, to seek for 
it with sincere longing of the heart. It may 
be said, indeed, that he is only speaking of the 
course to be generally followed; whenever 
there was momentary danger of death, baptism 
might be administered, even according to his 
views. But if he had thought this to be so 
necessary, it does not seem likely that he 
would have failed expressly to mention it. It 
would appear, in fact, from the principles laid 
down by him, that he did not believe that any 
efficacy whatever resided in baptism, unaccom- 
panied by conscious participation and individual 
faith of the person baptized; nor could he see 
any danger accruing to the age of innocence 
from delaying it ; a conclusion, however, by no 
means logically consistent with his own system. 

" But when, on the one hand, the doctrine 
of the hereditary corruption and guilt of human 



180 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

nature, the consequence of the first transgres- 
sion, was reduced to a more precise and sys- 
tematic form ; and when, on the other, from the 
want of a due distinction between the outward 
sign and the inward grace of baptism (the bap- 
tism by water and the baptism by the Spirit), 
the error became more and more firmly estab- 
lished that, without external baptism, no one 
soever could be delivered from that inherent 
guilt, could be saved from the everlasting pun- 
ishment that threatened him, or be raised to 
eternal life ; and when the notion of the magical 
effects of the mere administration of the sacra- 
ments gained ground continually, the theory was 
finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of 
infant baptism. About the middle of the third 
century this theory was already generally ad- 
mitted in the North African Church. 

"The Alexandrian Church, also, notwith- 
standing that in its theological and dogmatic 
character it was essentially different from the 
Church of North Africa, is found holding, 
even at a still earlier period, the doctrine of the 
necessity of infant baptism. Origen, in whose 
system infant baptism naturally finds its place, 
though not in the same connection of thought 
as it held in the system of the North African 
Church, declares it to be an apostolical tradi- 
tion; an expression, by the way, which, 
perhaps, can not be regarded as of much 
weight, being made in an age when a strong 
inclination prevailed to derive from the apostles 
every ordinance which was considered of 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 151 

special importance; and when, moreover, so 
many walls had already been thrown up 
between it and the apostolic age, hindering the 
freedom of prospect. 

"But if the necessity of infant baptism was 
acknowledged in theory, it was far from being 
uniformly recognized in practice. And, indeed, 
it was not always from the purest motives that; 
men were induced to put off their baptism. 
The very same false notion of baptism as an 
opus operatum, which had led some to consider 
the baptism of infants as unconditionally nec- 
essary, led many others, who, indeed, mistook 
the nature of this rite in a far grosser and more 
dangerous degree, to delay their baptism to 
the hour of death, in order that, freely aban- 
doning themselves in the meantime to their 
lusts, they might yet be cleansed by the mag- 
ical annihilation of their sins, and so pass, 
without hindrance, into eternal life. We have 
already noticed the pious indignation and 
energy with which Tertullian, who, in other 
respects, was opposed to haste in baptism, 
combated this error. It seems probable, also, 
that infant baptism furnished the first occasion 
for the appointment of sponsors, or god-par- 
ents; for, as in this case, the persons baptized 
could not themselves make tlie necessaty confession 
of faith and renunciation, it became necessary 
for others to do it in their name ; and these, at 
the same time, engaged to take care that the 
children should, be rightly instructed in Chris- 
tianity, and trained up i.i a life corresponding 



152 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

to the baptismal vow. They were, therefore, 
called sponsors (sponsores). Tertullian alleges 
it as an argument against infant baptism, that 
the sponsors assumed an obligation which they 
might be prevented from fulfilling, either by 
their own death or by the untoward conduct of 
the child. 

"And, first, as it respects baptism. It may 
be remarked that infant baptism — as we have 
observed that the fact was already toward the 
close of the preceding period — was now (A. D. 
312 to 590) generally recognized- as an apostol- 
ical institution ; but from the theory on this 
point we can draw no inference with regard to 
the practice. It was still very far from being 
the case, especially in the Greek Church, that 
infant baptism, although acknowledged to be 
necessary, was generally introduced into prac- 
tice. Partly the same mistaken notions which 
arose from confounding the thing represented 
by baptism with the outward rite, and which 
afterward led to the over-valuation of infant bap- 
tism, and, partly the frivolous tone of thinking, 
the indifference to all higher concerns, which 
characterized so many who had only exchanged 
the pagan for a Christian outside ; — all this to- 
gether contributed to bring it about that,* among 
the Christians of the East, infant baptism, 
though in theory acknowledged to be neces- 
sary, yet entered so rarely, and with so much 
difficulty, into the church life during the first 
half of this period. 

•"Accustomed to confound regeneration and 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 83 

baptism, believing that they were bound to 
connect the grace of baptism with the outward 
ordinance, with the performance of the external 
act ; failing to perceive that it should be some- 
thing going along with, and operating through* 
the entire life, many pious, but mistaken, 
parents, dreaded entrusting the baptismal grace 
to the weak, unstable age of their children, 
which grace, once lost by sin, could never be 
regained. They wished rather to reserve it 
against the more decided and mature age of 
manhood, as a refuge from the temptations and 
storms of an uncertain life. To a mother who 
acted on this principle, says Gregory of Nazian- 
zen : 'Let sin gain no advantage in thy child ; 
let it be sanctified from the swaddling clothes, 
consecrated to the Holy Ghost. You fear 
for the divine seal, because of the weakness of 
nature. What a feeble, faint-hearted mother 
must you be ! Anna consecrated her Samuel 
to God even before he was born ; immediately 
after his birth she made him a priest, and she 
trained him up in the priestly vesture. Instead 
of fearing the frailty of man, she trusted in 
God ! ' Others, unlike this mother, were in: 
duced, not by an error of the understanding, 
but by a delusion springing from an altogether 
ungodly temper, to defer their baptism to a 
future time. They had formed their conception 
of God, of whom they would gladly have been 
relieved from the necessity of thinking, only as 
an Almighty Judge, whose avenging arm ap- 
peared to their unappeased conscience ready to 



I84 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

strike them ; and they sought in baptism a 
means of evading the stroke, without being 
willing, however, to renounce their sinful pleas- 
ures. They were disposed to enter into a sort 
of compact or bargain with God and Christ, to 
be permitted to enjoy, as long as possible, their 
sinful pleasures, and yet, in the end, by the 
ordinance of baptism, which like a charm, was 
to wipe away their sins, to be purified from all 
their stains, and attain to blessedness in a mo- 
ment. Hence, many put off baptism until they 
were reminded by mortal sickness, or some 
other sudden danger, of approaching death. 
Hence it was, that in times of public calamity, 
in earthquakes, in the dangers of war, multi- 
tudes hurried to baptism, and the number of 
the existing clergy scarcely sufficed for the 
wants of all. 

"In the case of many who first received bap- 
tism in the later period of life, this proceeding 
was no doubt attended with one advantage— 
that the true import of the baptismal rite might 
then be more truly expressed. It was not until 
after they had been led, by some dispensation 
affecting the outward or inner life, to resolve 
on becoming Christians with the whole soul, 
that they applied for baptism. And the or- 
dinance, in this case, was not a mere opus 
operatum, but really constituted to them the 
commencement of a new era of life, truly con- 
secrated, in the temper of the heart, to God. 
Thus it was, that many made it a point, from 
the time of their baptism, to enter upon the 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 85 

literal observance of Christ's precepts; they 
would no longer take an oath, and not a few 
outwardly renounced the world and became 
monks, which, at all events shows what import- 
ance they attached to this ordinance. But, on 
the other hand, the cause of delaying baptism, 
with numbers, was their want of any true inter- 
est in religion, their being bred and living along 
in a medley of pagan and Christian superstition ; 
nor can it be denied that the neglect of infant 
baptism contributed to prolong this sad state of 
things. By means of baptism, children would 
have been immediately introduced into a cer- 
tain connection with the church, and at least 
brought more directly under its influences, in- 
stead of being exposed, as they now were from 
their birth, to pagan superstition, and often 
kept at a distance, in their first training, from 
all contact with Christianity. To commend 
their children to God and to the Savior in 
prayer, was not the custom of parents ; but 
rather to call in old women, who were supposed 
to possess the power of protecting the life of 
infants by amulets and other devices of heathen 
superstition. 

' 'As it respects the doctrine concerning bap- 
tism, from which, for reasons stated under the 
preceding period, the doctrine of regeneration 
was not severed, we must observe that the dif- 
ference here again became strongly marked, 
which we discern in the views of the Eastern 
compared with those of the Western Church, 
with regard to human nature and the doctrine 



1 86 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

of redemption, namely: that in the Western 
Church, with original sin, the negative effect of 
the redemption in procuring deliverance from 
this, and in the Eastern Church, on the other 
hand, the positive effect of the redemption, con- 
sidered in the light of a new creation, were 
made especially prominent. Thus Gregory of 
Nazianzen calls baptism a more divine, exalted 
creation than the original formation of nature. 
Thus, too, Cyril of Jerusalem, addressing the 
candidate for baptism, says : 'If thou believest, 
thou not only obtainest the forgiveness of sins, 
but thou effectest also that which is above 
man. Thou obtainest as much of grace as thou 
canst hold. ' This difference would be strongly 
marked, especially in the case of infant baptism. 
According to the North-African scheme of doc- 
trine, which taught that all men were, from 
their birth, in consequence of the guilt and sin 
transmitted from Adam, subjected to the same 
condemnation, that they bore within them the 
principle of all sin, deliverance from original sin 
and inherited guilt would be made particularly 
prominent in the case of infant baptism as in 
the case of the baptism of adults. And this 
was favored by the ancient formula of baptism, 
ivliich, however, originated in a period when infant 
baptism had, as yet, no existence, and had been 
afterward applied, without alteration^ to children, 
because men shrank from undertaking to intro- 
duce any change in the consecrated formula 
established by apostolical authority, though 
Christians were by no means agreed as to the 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 87 

sense in which they applied this formula. 'Ac- 
cordingly, ' says Gregory of Nazianzen, 'to the 
children baptism is a seal (a means of securing 
human nature in the germ against all moral 
evil by the higher principle of life communicated 
to it); for adults it is, moreover, forgiveness of 
sin and restoration of the image degraded and 
lost by transgression ! ' Hence, he looks upon 
infant baptism as a consecration to the priestly 
dignity, which is imparted to the child from the 
beginning, that so evil may gain no advantage 
over him. In a homily addressed to the neo- 
phites, Chrysostom specifies ten different ef- 
fects of grace wrought in baptism ; and then he 
complains of those who make the grace of bap- 
tism consist simply in the forgiveness of sin. 
True, the difference here becomes manifest be- 
tween the more rhetorical Chrysostom and the 
systematic Augustine ; for the latter would have 
referred those ten specifications to one funda- 
mental conception, in which they might all be 
summed up together. But, at the basis of this 
difference, lay that other, which has already 
been noticed in respect to the general mode of 
Christian intuition. Hence Chrysostom adds: 
'It is for this reason we baptize also infants, 
though they are not, like others, stained with sin, 
that so holiness, justification, adoption, heirship 
and brothership with Christ may be imparted 
to them through Christ, that so they may be 
members of Christ.' 

"These words of Chrysostom are, indeed, 
known to us only in the Latin translation, and 



153 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

through a citation of the Pelagian writer Julian. 
But their genuineness is evinced by the fact 
that Augustine had nothing to object to them 
on that score, but must seek to deprive Pelagian- 
ism of this support by giving the passage an- 
other interpretation. And, in truth, this pas- 
sage strictly accords with the peculiar character 
already noticed, belonging to the type of doc- 
trine, not only of the Oriental Church general- 
ly, but of Chrysostom in particular. 

"Julian is wrong in explaining the words of 
Chrysostom wholly according to his own sense, 
as if Chrysostom had meant to say that human 
nature is still born in the same state as it was at 
first ; for this is, in fact, at variance with his 
doctrine concerning the innocence lost by the 
sin of the first man. But if Julian was wrong 
in this single respect, that he contemplated the 
words wholly out of their connection with 
Chrysostom's entire mode of thinking on doc- 
trinal matters, Augustine, on the other hand, 
manifestly tortured them, when he explained 
them according to his system, as referring bare- 
ly to the absence of actual personal sin ; for in 
this case the antithesis made by Chrysostom 
would, in fact, not hold good. 

"Isidore, of Pelusium, also replies to the 
question why infants, who are without sin, should 
be baptized, in the following way: Some, who 
took too narrow a view of the matter, said it 
was that they might be cleansed from the sin 
transmitted to them from Adam. This, indeed, 
he said, was not to be denied, but it was not 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 89 

the only reason. This would still be a thing 
not so great after all ; but there would be be- 
sides many other gracious gifts communicated 
to them, which far exceed any possible attain- 
ments of human nature. Infants were not only 
delivered from the punishment of sin, but,. 
moreover, had imparted to them a divine re- 
generation, adoption, justification, fellowship 
with Christ. The remedy amounted to far more 
than the mere removal of an evil. 

' 'Theodore, of Mopsuestia, seized in this 
case upon only one side, or moment, of the 
Oriental Church doctrine, which moment, in in- 
fant baptism, was ever made the more prominent 
one ; but the other he dropped entirely, as his 
system required that he should. It is, accord- 
ing to his doctrine, the same state of human 
nature, mutable and liable to temptation, in 
which the first man was created, and in which 
all infants are born. Baptism, in the case of 
adults, has a twofold purpose : to bestow on 
them the forgiveness of sin, and to exalt them, 
by fellowship with Christ, to a participation in 
his freedom from sin, and his moral immuta- 
bility, which is the passing over from the first 
portion of the development of life in humanity, 
into the second, which is fully entered upon 
only at the general restoration. That which is 
received at baptism is the principle and pledge 
of that freedom from sin which will then first 
come to be fully realized. In the case of infant 
baptism, then, the forgiveness of sin, according 
to Theodore's doctrine, does not properly come 



I9O BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

into consideration ; but its purpose and object 
is simply the imparting of that new and higher 
life, exempt from sin, of which the entire 
human nature stands in need. He distinguishes, 
accordingly, a twofold meaning of the forgive- 
ness of sin, to the bestowment of which the 
formula of baptism refers. He supposed, there- 
fore, in this latter respect, the same supernatur- 
al communication in the case of infant baptism, 
as in the case of the baptism of adults ; though, 
following out the natural bent of his acute and 
discriminating understanding, he carefully dis- 
tinguished here, too, that which is merely the 
symbol and vehicle, from that which is the 
working principle, lest that should be ascribed 
to the magical operation of the water, which 
could only be ascribed to the agency of the 
Holy Spirit. The water, he maintained, ac- 
cording to the comparison employed by Christ 
in his conversation with Nicodemus, stood re- 
lated to the creative power of God, in the new 
and higher birth, as the body of the mother to 
the creative power of God in the natural birth. 
"This mode of apprehension was adopted, as 
we learn particularly from the explanations of 
Ccelestius and of Julian, by the Pelagians ; 
though it did not, in their system, rest upon 
the same foundation as in the Oriental and in 
the Antiochian systems. In this way we must 
understand what Ccelestius says in the creed 
which he sent to Rome : 'Infants must, accord- 
ing to the rule of the Universal Church, and 
according to the declaration of the Gospel, be 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. I9I 

baptized in order to the forgiveness of sin. 
Since our Lord has determined that the king- 
dom of heaven can be bestowed only on the 
baptized, and since the powers of Nature are 
not adequate to this, it must be the free gift of 
grace. It is clear that Ccelestius, in denying, 
that any sinfulness adhered to infants, could 
understand baptism for the forgiveness of sins, 
in this case, only after the same manner with 
Theodore, of Mopsuestia; and, accordingly, he 
understood also, in like manner with the latter, 
by the kingdom of heaven, that which tran- 
scends the limits of human nature ; that which 
can only be bestowed upon it by a higher com- 
munication from God. Thus the Pelagian, 
Julian, though he absolutely denied the possi- 
bility of any forgiveness of sins in the case of 
infants, could still declare that baptism, having 
been once instituted by Christ, must be acknowl- 
edged as universally valid, and necessary for 
every age; that eternal condemnation awaited 
every one who denied that this rite was profitable 
also for children. 'The grace of baptism,' said 
he, ' is everywhere the same ; but its effects ap- 
pear different, according to the different rela- 
tions and circumstances of the subjects of it. 
In some the negative effect, the forgiveness of 
sin, must precede the positive, the exaltation 
of man's nature. In infants, the effect is only 
to ennoble the nature, which remains in its orig- 
inal condition of goodness.' Although it 
would be natural for the Pelagians, according to 
the principles of their system, to ascribe to 



I92 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

baptism, as being an external act, a merely sym- 
bolical import, yet they did not find it possible 
to disentangle themselves wholly from the 
church tradition of their period ; but they sought 
to reconcile what they found in that tradition, 
as best they could, with their own principles, 
which had arisen in an entirely different way. 
Moreover, with regard to the relations of the 
divine matter to the external sign, of regen- 
eration to outward baptism, they had precisely 
the same notions which were the prevailing 
ones in the Church; for this becomes suffi- 
ciently clear from what they taught respecting 
the effects of infant baptism; and Julian ex- 
pressed himself on this point with distinctness 
and precision. 

''On the other hand, the doctrine which, 
ever since the time of Cyprian, by the habit of 
confounding the inward grace with the outward 
sign in baptism, had become predominant, es- 
pecially in the North African Church, the doc- 
trine of the damnation of unbaptized infants 
appeared to the Pelagians as something revolt- 
ing, something whereby a tyrannical, arbitrary 
will was imputed to the Divine Being. But, on 
the other hand, they must themselves, however, 
according to the theory just unfolded, sup- 
pose the higher grace of participating in the 
highest stage of blessedness in the kingdom of 
heaven was conditioned solely on the obtaining 
of baptism ; and even they found this asserted 
in the words of Christ to Nicodemus, as even 
they made no distinction of the baptism of the 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. I93 

Spirit from the baptism with water. Accord- 
ingly, they must, of necessity, affirm, with re- 
gard to unbaptized infants, that, although free 
and exempt from punishment, they were still 
excluded from that higher state of being, and 
attained only to a certain intermediate state. 
This was what Ccelestius really meant to say in 
the declarations above cited. 

"And to the same result, on this subject, 
must every one have been led, who was inclined 
to adopt the Oriental mode of considering the 
effects of baptism, and would consistently fol- 
low out the matter to a definite conclusion ; 
unless he supposed a universal redemption or 
restoration, as the final end, to which that inter- 
mediate state was destined to prove a point of 
transition for unbaptized infants. Such an in- 
termediate state Gregory of Nazianzen also as- 
signed for those who were unbaptized through 
no fault of their own. Augustine himself had 
once entertained a like opinion. Ambrose, of 
Milan, believed, also, that it was necessary t© 
infer from the words of Christ to Nicodemus, 
that none could enter the kingdom of heaven 
without baptism ; but it was his opinion, though 
he had no confidence in it, that unbaptized in- 
fants would be exempted from punishment. 
Pelagius himself shrank from expressing any 
decided opinion on this point, though, by logic- 
al thinking, it was absolutely out of his power 
to avoid that consequence of his principles. He 
affirmed of unbaptized children that of one thing 
he was sure, namely, that they could not, as 



194 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

innocent beings, suffer punishment consistently 
with the divine justice ; but what would become 
of them was more than he knew, doubt- 
less because he was of the opinion that no dis- 
tinct declaration on this point could be found in 
'the Sacred Scriptures. 

"But then Augustine could, however not 
without good reason, accuse the Pelagians of in- 
consistency, when they charged the advocates 
of the doctrine of absolute predestination with 
imputing arbitrary will to God, while they them- 
selves were still more involved in this error, by 
supposing that God excluded innocent beings 
from the kingdom of heaven, which he bestowed 
on others who were in no respect more worthy 
of it. The notion, moreover, of an intermediate 
place between the state of woe and the kingdom 
of heaven was a thing altogether unscriptural, 
and incredible in itself; for man, being in the 
image of God, was destined to find his bliss in 
communion with God, and out of that com- 
munion could be no other wise than wretched. 
The Council of Carthage, A. D. 418, finally con- 
demned, in its XI. Canon, the doctrine of such 
an intermediate state for unbaptized children, 
on the ground that nothing could be conceived 
as existing between the kingdom of God and 
perdition ; but then, too, according to the doc- 
trine of this Council, the eternal perdition of all 
unbaptized infants was expressly affirmed — a 
consistency of error revolting to the natural 
sentiments of humanity. It is worthy of no- 
tice, -however, that this particular passage of 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. lg$ 

the Canon is wanting in a portion of the manu- 
scripts. 

"But such being the prevailing doctrine con- 
cerning baptism, reflecting minds must now 
have been struck with the difficulty of conceiv- 
ing how a divine influence could take effect in 
the case of infants devoid of all conscious moral 
action of their own. Augustine, by means of 
his correct principles, above explained, respect- 
ing the essence of sacraments, might have found 
out a better way if he had not been fettered by 
the authority of the church doctrine. His re- 
ply, indeed, explains nothing; but it proceeds 
from a profound feeling of the essential nature 
of Christian fellowship. He says : 'The faith of 
the church, which consecrates infants to God, 
in the spirit of love, takes the place of their 
own faith ; and albeit they possess, as yet, no 
faith of their own, yet there is nothing in their 
thoughts to hinder the divine efficacy. ' His 
scheme, then, amounted to this : that as the 
child, in its corporeal and independent ex- 
istence, was fully developed, was supported by 
the vital forces of Nature in its bodily mother ; 
so ere it came to the independent development 
of its spiritual being in its consciousness, it is 
supported by the heightened vital forces of that 
spiritual mother, the church — an idea which 
would involve some truth, supposing the visi- 
ble church corresponded to its ideal, when ap- 
plied, without being so literally understood, to 
infant baptism." 

Now, my dear brother, tell me, if you can, 



I96 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

how it is possible for me to resume the practice 
of infant baptism in the face of this tremendous 
mass of unimpeachable pedobaptist testimony 
against it. Your very best exegetes being 
judges, the New Testament is entirely silent re- 
specting it. Your most learned and able his- 
torians agree that it is an invention of men, 
gotten up since the age of the apostles. Your 
greatest church historian shows that it is the 
child of one of the most corrupt and deadly of 
all heresies. He traces its rise and progress, as 
it developed out of the notion of sacramental 
salvation. Each stage of its growth is clearly 
shown. Baptism first came to be looked upon 
as a rite of magic power, by which men could 
be saved, no matter how vile — and without 
which even the sweet, guileless babe must be 
forever lost. Then was infant baptism born of 
heresy and superstition, nurtured by priest- 
craft and perpetuated by ecclesiastical power, 
reinforced by the sword of the State. 

Christ and his apostles were not pedobaptists ; 
they were Baptists, your ablest writers being 
judges. All the Romish Popes are pedobap- 
tistSc Indeed, by that craft they gained and 
retain their power. This is a plain, undeniable 
historic fact. Infant baptism is the mother of 
the Papacy. Here is the real pedigree of the 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 9/ 

great apostasy. Baptismal regeneration, born 
of ignorance, brought forth infant baptism, of 
which were born the State Church, Romanism, 
and the Church-above-the-State , Popery. With- 
out infant baptism the Papacy could never have 
been. Without it, one generation would end 
the Roman Catholic hierarchy. No infant bap- 
tism, no Pope. That is as plain as that two and 
two are four. And the hierarchy appreciates 
that fact, and the Council of Trent pronounced 
a curse upon all who reject infant baptism or 
speak against it. Why, then, should I, in this 
matter, quit the company of Christ and his 
apostles and go over to the company of the 
Pope ? Why, in this matter, should you be on 
the side of the Pope rather than on the side of 
Christ? 

Infant baptism, as your own witnesses prove, 
is not scriptural ; it was not instituted by Christ 
or his apostles. Then, why cling to it so 
tenaciously? What good does it do? Are 
those who are baptized in infancy any better 
than those who are not ? Who will dare assert 
that they are ? Recently I heard a venerable 

pedobaptist divine, Rev. Dr. B , declare, 

in a public address, that when he supplied 
the pulpit of a very prominent Episcopal Church, 
in one of our great cities, a few years ago, the 



I98 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

children were not in the sanctuary, but at home, 
on the streets, or in the saloons. And that was 
on the Lord's day, and those children were the 
"baptized children of the church," of which 
we hear so much. Of what value was their in- 
fant baptism ? 

You know perfectly well that it is of no prac- 
tical utility. It can no more suffice to save the 
soul than to render efficacious medicines in- 
tended to heal the body. Were I to charge 
you with believing there is any saving virtue in 
it, you would repel the charge vigorously and 
indignantly. And yet you persist in your prac- 
tice of it, just as if it were an apostolic and 
sacred ordinance. But, as your own ablest 
brethren demonstrate, it is neither apostolic nor 
scriptural ; and, as the facts of daily observation 
abundantly prove, it has no saving, transform- 
ing power over character. I wonder you do 
not abandon it. What is it but the weakness 
and menace of Protestantism — the grappling- 
iron of that awful ecclesiastical despotism, Ro- 
manism ? I tell you most solemnly, my dear 
brother, there is nothing good in it — absolutely 
nothing; but the evils that flow from it are 
legion, and the greatest of them — next to the dis- 
honor it casts upon the authority of Christ in 
his own house — is the superstition it fosters 



HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 99 

among the people. Practically, multitudes 
come to regard it as a cure for the "go-backs" of 
the body and of the soul. To them, it is in- 
deed a charm, under the protection of which 
they feel safe. Insensibly, but really, they put 
it in the place of Christ ; make it their trust ; re- 
gard it as their ticket of admission into heaven, 
and rest contentedly in their sins, deluded by a 
false hope. And the evil does not end there. 
They take their places in the churches — duly 
christened, but strangers to Christ ; and the in- 
evitable result is, a Christless church, or, at the 
best, a church in which the Christless element 
predominates. And a church made up very 
largely of baptized sons of Belial can always be 
counted on as a perpetual fountain of darkness 
and death. The history of Lutheranism in 
Germany is an illustration in point. Why is it 
that evangelical pedobaptists are to-day sending 
missionaries to Germany ? Simply because in- 
fant baptism has neutralized the great Reforma- 
tion. "If the light that is in thee be darkness, 
how great is that darkness." Yours; . 



200 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 



X. 

MORE WITNESSES. 



"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet ', and a 
unto my path." — Psalmist. 

My Dear Brother : — I do not wonder that 
you are astonished at the great number and the 
high character of the witnesses whom I have 
cited from your own ranks against the practice 
of sprinkling, and against infant baptism. But 
there are many more of the same sort, and 
their numbers are daily increasing. And they 
testify against their own practices with an 
amazing directness and unanimity. That they 
should do so, and still adhere to those practices, 
which, by their own showing, are unscriptural, 
is a difficult problem ; one that concerns all good 
people, but especially all good pedobaptists. 

The explanation may, perhaps, be found in 
the influence of habit and environment holding 
them with a fearful grip in the practice of 
things once believed to be apostolic, but now 



MORE WITNESSES. 201 

known to be inventions of men. It is no easy 
matter to break away from long-established 
habits and usages, and especially in matters 
ecclesiastical and of wide-spread public notoriety. 
It involves a most humiliating confession of er* 
ror ; challenges the criticism and hostility of 
brethren who are less enlightened ; rends asun- 
der old associations full of tender and sacred 
memories, destroying friendships that otherwise 
would terminate only with life itself; in a word, 
it jeopardizes reputation, position, influence 
and personal comfort, in a thousand ways, de- 
manding tremendous and almost immeasurable 
sacrifices, and, to me, it is no wonder that many 
good men shrink from an ordeal so severe. Of 
course, I am speaking of men in public life — 
ministers, pastors, teachers and expositors — 
men whose opinions, practices and changes are 
matters of public interest. These men are, to 
a large extent, tied up by their environment. 
In accepting their positions and work, they have 
given themselves, as hostages, into the keep- 
ing of their brethren, to abide in the old ways. 
They did it honestly, and in all good faith, in 
early life, not anticipating any need of any 
change of usages. Then, by and by, came new 
knowledge, and as the light increased they were 
confronted by facts very stern and unpleasant. 



202 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

And it may be that many good men, in the 
presence of an ordeal so crucial, find it far 
easier to take refuge in the convenient plea of 
indifferency — so common in the ranks of our 
pedobaptist friends — than boldly to risk all for 
the truth of Christ. Or, making a merit of 
necessity, as many other good people have done, 
they may have put a confession of the truth in the 
place of the practice of it, just as certain other 
wrong-doers think it enough to say frankly, 
' * Oh, yes, I know I am doing wrong ; I do not 
deny that; I freely confess it," and then keep 
right along doing the same wrong things, as if the 
confession of the wrong could make the doing 
of it right. 

But be the solution of this problem what it 
may, the fact is undeniable, that an ever-grow- 
ing "cloud of witnesses," men of the highest 
rank of scholarship and piety, testify clearly 
and fully against their own pedobaptist practices 
as altogether unscriptural. Indeed, it is getting 
to be a thing so common, that many good people 
are in real danger of coming to regard it as a 
mere matter of course, and so to attach to such 
testimonies far less importance than justly be- 
longs to them. 

Suppose, for a single moment, if you can, 
that some eminent Baptist were found testify- 



MORE WITNESSES. 203 

ing that immersion was unknown in the apostolic 
age, or that infant baptism was the universal 
practice of those times, what an amazing sensa- 
tion it would produce. It would be a new thing 
under the sun, and there would be a mighty 
stampede of Baptists. Or, imagine an eminent 
Baptist translator writing, "I, indeed, baptize 
(sprinkle) you with water. " It would create a 
moral earthquake in the Baptist camp. But 
here are large numbers of pedobaptists — an in- 
creasing number of them every year — bearing 
testimony just as fatal in its character to pedo- 
baptist practices. That it is not equally fatal 
in its effect on those practices, is a fact not to 
be denied, and a fact, it must be conceded, not 
very much to the credit of our pedobaptist 
friends. ■ 

When eminent pedobaptist writers translate 
baptizo by immerse, as some of them actually do, 
it is time to ask gravely: ''Why is it that they 
do not conform their practice to the command 
of our Lord as translated by themselves ? " In- 
deed, this question is already an old one, and 
the answer has long been stereotyped. Rome 
says the Church has power to change the ordi- 
nances at her pleasure. Calvin treats the form 
of the ordinance as a matter of indifference, even 
when that form is definitely determined by the 



204 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

divine command, as in the rite of baptism. 
And in this one thing, if nothing else, the great 
mass of our pedobaptist friends are loyal Cal- 
vinists. But in this I praise them not, deem- 
ing it far better that men should be loyal to 
Him who says, ' 'Ye are my friends if you do 
whatsoever I command you." Just how a man 
can go about the task of convincing our Lord 
that he is his friend, while refusing to obey his 
precepts, is more than I can understand. Of 
one thing I am very sure ; it is a very bold, 
hazardous thing to do. Jesus himself condemns 
it in advance, in those pregnant words : ' 'He that 
loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings." (John 
xiv. 24.) 

But, leaving this matter to each one's con- 
science, I will now place before you the testi- 
monies of a few more representative pedobap- 
tist writers : 

John Calvin. — Institutes, Book IV., Chap. 15, 
Sec. 19. — "The word baptize signifies to im- 
merse, and it is certain that immersion was the 
practice of the ancient church." 

Martin Luther. — "First, the name baptism 
is Greek. In Latin it can be rendered immer- 
sion, as when we immerse anything into water, 
that it may be all covered with water. And, 
although that custom has now grown out of use 
with most persons (nor do they wholly sub- 



MORE WITNESSES. 205 

merge children, but only pour on a little water), 
yet they ought to be entirely immersed and im- 
mediately drawn out, for this the etymology of 
the name seems to demand." 

Melancthon. — * 'Baptism is an entire act ; to- 
wit, a dipping." 

Casaubon. — "The manner of baptizing was 
to plunge or dip them into the water, even as 
the word baptism plainly shows." 

Archbishop Secker. — "Burying, as it were, 
the person baptized in water and raising him 
out again, without question was anciently the 
more usual method." 

Leigh. — ' 'The native and proper signification 
of it is to dip into water, or to plunge under 
water." 

Godet. — On Luke. — "The rite of baptism, 
which consisted in the plunging of the body 
more or less completely into the water, was not 
in use at this time" [/". <?. , when John the Bap- 
tist began his ministry]. 

H. A. W. Meyer, V.B. — Ou Matt. Hi. n.— 
"En is, in accordance with the meaning of dap- 
tizo, immerse {eintaucheii), not to be understood 
instrument ally, but on the contrary, as in, in the 
sense of the element wherein the immersion 
{eintaucheii) takes place." 

Prof. Charles Anthon, LL.D. — "The pri- 
mary meaning of the word {baptizd) is to dip, or 
to immerse ; and its secondary meanings — if it 
ever had any — all refer in some way or other to 
the same leading idea. . . . Sprinkling 



206 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

and pouring are entirely out of the question" [i. e. y 
as definitions of baptizo\ ' 

Samuel Clark, D.D. — "In the primitive 
times, the manner of baptizing was by immer- 
sion, or dipping the whole body into water." 

Vitringa. — "The act of baptizing is the im- 
mersion of believers in water. This expresses 
the force of the word." 

Grotius. — "That baptism used to be per- 
formed by immersion, and not by pouring, ap- 
pears from the proper signification of the word, 
and by the places chosen for the administra- 
tion of this rite." 

Mede. — "There was no such thing as sprink- 
ling used in the apostles' days, nor for many 
days after them." 

Witsius. — "It can not be denied that the 
native signification of the word baptein or bap- 
tizeitiy is to plunge or dip." 

Vossius. — "To baptize signifies to plunge." 

Wilson. — u To baptize — to dip one into water, 
to plunge one into water." 

Poole. — "A great part of those who went 
out to hear John were" baptized ; that is, dipped 
in the Jordan." 

Wetstein. — ' 'To baptize is to plunge, to dip. 
The body, or part of the body, being under 
water is said to be baptized." 

Saurin. — "The ceremony of wholly immers- 
ing us in water when we were baptized, signi- 
fies that we died to sin." 

Maldonatus. — "For in Greek to be baptized 
is the same as to be submerged." 



"MORE WITNESSES, 2QJ 

Bishop Taylor. — On Matt, Hi. 16. — "The 
custom of the ancient- churches was not sprink- 
ling, but immersion ; in pursuance of the sense 
of the word in the commandment, and the ex- 
ample of our blessed Savior." 

Storr and Flatt. — Biblical Theology, Art. 
Baptism. — "The disciples of our Lord could 
understand his command in no other way than 
as enjoining immersion ; for the baptism of John, 
to which Jesus himself submitted, and also the 
earlier baptism of the disciples of Jesus, was 
performed by dipping the subject into cold water. 

"And that they actually did understand it so, 
is proved ; partly by those passages of the New 
Testament, which evidently allude to immersion, 
and partly from the fact that immer- 
sion was so customary in the Ancient Church, 
that even in the third century the baptism of 
the sick, who were merely sprinkled with water, 
was entirely neglected by some, and by others 
was thought inferior to the baptism of those 
who were in health, and who received baptism 
not merely by aspersion, but who actually 
bathed themselves in water. This is evident 
from Cyprian (Epistle 69., ed. Bremae, p. 185, 
etc.,) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., L. vi., cap. 
43), where we find the following extract from 
the letter of the Roman Bishop Cornelius: 
'Novatus received baptism on the sick-bed by 
aspersion (perie/iutlieis), if it can be said that 
such a person received baptism.' No person 
who had, during sickness, been baptized by 
aspersion, was admitted into the -clerical office. 



208 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

Moreover, the old custom of immersion, was 
also retained a long time in the Western Church 
— at least in the case of those who were not in- 
disposed. And even after aspersion had been 
fully introduced in a part of the Western 
Churches, there yet remained several who, for 
some time, adhered to the ancient custom. 
Under these circumstances it is certainly to be 
lamented that Luther was not able to accom- 
plish his wish with regard to the introduction of 
immersion in baptism, as he had done in the re- 
storation of wine in the eucharist. " 

Now, my brother, weigh carefully the state- 
ments of these last witnesses — Storr and Flatt. 
They admit all that Baptists claim with respect 
to the facts. They frankly tell us that Christ 
prescribed immersion ; that his apostles could un- 
derstand his command in no other manner than 
as enjoining immersion ; that immersion was the 
custom of the Ancient Church, and that this 
custom was retained a long time in the Western 
Churches. They assure us that the change 
from immersion to sprinkling ought never to 
have been made, and that Luther desired to re- 
store the old practice of immersion, but did not 
succeed in doing so. Now, if these witnesses 
tell the truth, then it follows beyond question — 

i . That immersion was established by com- 
mand of Christ. 



MORE WITNESSES. 20Q 

2. That it was set aside in defiance of his 
command. 

3. That the practice of sprinkling is against 
his authority. 

4. That it is simply custom against Christ. 

5. That in this controversy the Baptists are 
right. 

6. That in adhering to immersion, they are 
loyal to Christ. 

7. That in insisting upon immersion as bap- 
tism, they honor and obey Christ. 

Here are seven good and conclusive reasons 
why every Baptist should remain a Baptist, and 
why all other true disciples of the Master should 
hasten to become Baptists as soon as possible. 

Bishop Davenant. — "In the Ancient Church 
they did not merely sprinkle, but immersed 
those whom they baptized." 

Rev. George Campbell, D.D. — "The word 
baptism, both in sacred authors and classical, 
signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was 
thus rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the 
Latin Fathers." "It is always thus construed 
suitably to this meaning." "It is never, in 
any case, sacred or profane, employed in the 
sense of rain or sprinkle." 

Prof. Moses Stuart. — "Both these words 
{bapto and baptizo) mean to dip, to immerse, to 
plunge into anything liquid. All lexicographers 
and critics of any note are agreed in this." 



2IO BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

Rosenmuller. — ' 'To baptize is to immerse 
or dip ; the body, or the part of the body which 
is to be baptized, going under the water." 

Scholz. — "Baptism consists in the immer- 
sion of the whole body in water." 

Dr. Dollinger. — "The fact that the Baptists 
are so numerous, or even the most numerous 
of all religious parties in North America, de- 
serves all attention. They would, indeed, be 
yet more numerous, were not baptism, as well 
as the Lord's Supper, as to their sacramental 
significance, regarded in the Calvinistic world 
as something so subordinate, that the inquiry 
after the original form appears to many as some- 
thing indifferent, about which one need not 
much trouble himself. The Baptists are, how- 
ever, in fact, from the Protestant standpoint, 
unassailable ; since for their demand of baptism 
by submersion, they have the clear Bible text, 
and the authority of the church, and of her 
testimony, is regarded by neither party." 

Dr. Towerson. — On Baptism. — "As touch- 
ing the outward and visible sign of baptism, 
there is no doubt it is the element of water, as 
is evident from the significance of the word 
baptism, which signifies an immersion, or dip- 
ping into some liquid thing." 

Dr. Fritzsche. — On Rom. vi. 4. — "We are 
therefore (i. e. y because, when we were baptized 
by immersion into water, Christ's death was 
presented before us in an image of burial) as was 
Christ, deposited in a tomb by baptism, that we 
might be declared dead." 



MORE WITNESSES. 211 

Dr. Porson — "The Baptists have the ad- 
vantage of us. Baptizo signifies a total immer- 
sion." 

Bishop Browne. — Smith's Bible Dictionary •, 
Art. Baptism. — "The language of the New 
Testament and of the primitive Fathers, sufrV 
ciently points to immersion as the common 
mode of baptism. John the Baptist baptized in 
the river Jordan (Matt, iii.); Jesus is represented 
as coming up out of the water after his baptism 
(Mark i. 10). Again, John is said to have bap- 
tized in Enon, because there was much water 
there" (John iii. 23). 

Archbishop Sumner. — Lectures. — "John was 
baptizing, i. e., immersing in water, those who 
came to him for this purpose, confessing their 
sins." 

Dr. Stier.— Words, Vol. VIII, p. 306.— -"The 
perfect immersion is not accidental in form, but 
manifestly intended in baptizein eis." 

Seeden. — Works, Vol. VI., Col. 2008. — 
"In England, of late years, I ever thought the 
peraon baptized his own fingers, rather than the 
child." 

Buddeus. — Theol. Dogm. Vol. I, C. I., Sec. . 
5. — "The words baptizein and baptismos are 
not to be interpreted of aspersion, but always 
of immersion." 

Bucanus. — Inst. Theol. — ' 'Baptism, that is, 
immersion, dipping, and by consequence, wash- 
ing. Baptistery, a vat, or large vessel of wood or 
stone, in which we are immersed, for the sake 
of washing. Baptist, one that immerses or 
dips." 



212 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

Hospinian. — Hist. Sacr., Book n., C. i, p. 30. 
— ' 'Christ commanded us to be baptized, by 
which word it is certain immersion is signi- 
fied." 

Beza. — On Matt. Hi. 13. — "But baptizo signi- 
fies to dip, since it came from bapto, and since 
things to be dyed are immersed. Christ com- 
manded us to be baptized, by which word it is 
certain immersion is signified. Neither does 
the word baptizo signify to wash, except by con- 
sequence, for it properly signifies to plunge into, 
for the sake of tinging or dyeing." 

Richard Baxter.— On Matt. Hi. 6. — "We 
grant that baptism then (in apostolic times) 
was by washing the whole body. " . . "In 
our baptism, we are dipped under the water, 
as signifying our covenant profession, that, as 
He was buried for sin, so we are dead and buried 
to sin." 

G. Diodati. — "In baptism, being dipped in 
water, according to the ancient ceremony, it is 
a sacred sign unto us that sin ought to be 
drowned in us by God's Spirit." 

Lange. — On Matt. Hi. 1, 6, 11. — "This 
baptism was administered t>y immersion, and 
not merely by sprinkling. It denoted purifica- 
tion, but not only washing, but submitting to 
sufferings akin to death. So far as is known, 
this rite was not accompanied by the usual 
sacrifices, but the deepest spiritual part of the 
sacrificial services — the confession of sins — pre- 
ceded the immersion. 

6. "And were baptized [immersed] in the 



MORE WITNESSES. 213 

Jordan, confessing their sins. Immersion was 
the usual mode of baptism and the symbol of re- 
pentance. According to Meyer, repentance 
was symbolized by immersion, because every 
part of the body was purified. But, in that 
case, the whole body might have been washed 
without immersion. We must keep in view 
the idea of a symbolical descent into the grave, 
or the death of sin, although this view, as ex- 
plained in Rom. vi., could not yet have been 
fully realized at the time. ... A full con- 
fession of sins accompanied the act of immer- 
sion. 

II. "I, indeed, baptize in \eii\ water (im- 
mersing you in the element of water) unto re- 
pentance. He shall baptize, or immerse, you 
in the Holy Ghost and in fire. He will either 
entirely immerse you in the Holy Ghost as 
penitents, or, if impenitent, he will overwhelm 
you with the fire of judgment (and at last with 
hell-fire)." 

Prof. L. L. Paine, D.D. — "It may be 
honestly asked by some, Was immersion the 
primitive form of "baptism? and if so, what 
then? As to the question of fact, the testimony 
is ample and decisive. No matter of church his- 
tory is clearer. The evidence is all one way, 
and all church historians of any repute agree in 
accepting it. We can not claim even originality 
in teaching it in a Congregational seminary. 
And we really feel guilty of a kind of anachro- 
nism in writing an article to insist upon it. It 
is a point on which ancient, mediaeval and mod- 



214 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

ern historians alike — Catholic and Protestant, 
Lutheran and Calvinist — have no controversy. 
And the simple reason for this unanimity is, 
that the statements of the early Fathers are so 
clear, and the light shed upon these statements 
from the early customs of the church is so con- 
clusive, that no historian who cares for his 
reputation would dare to deny it, and no histor- 
ian who is worthy of the name woul-d wish to." 
Dean Stanley. — "Essay on Baptism." — 
''For the first thirteen centuries the almost uni- 
versal practice of baptism was that of which we 
read in the New Testament, and which is the 
very meaning of the word 'baptize' — that those 
who were baptized were plunged, submerged, im- 
mersed into the water. That practice is still, as 
we have seen, continued in Eastern Churches. 
In the Western Church it still lingers amongst 
Roman Catholics in the solitary instance of the 
Cathedral of Milan, amongst Protestants in the 
austere sect of the Baptists. It lasted long into 
the middle ages. Even the Icelanders, who at 
first shrank from the waters of the freezing 
lakes, were reconciled when they found that 
they could use the warm water of the geysers. 
And the cold climate of Russia has not been 
found an obstacle to its continuance throughout 
that vast Empire. Even in the Church of En- 
gland, it is still observed in theory. Elizabeth 
and Edward the Sixth were both immersed. 
It had, no doubt, the sanction of 

THE APOSTLES AND OF THEIR MASTER. It had 

the sanction of the venerable churches of the 



MORE WITNESSES. 21 5 

early ages, and of the sacred countries of the 
East. Baptism by sprinkling was rejected by 
the whole ancient church (except in the rare 
case of death-beds, or extreme necessity) as no 
baptism at all. Almost the first exception was 
the heretic Novatian. It has still the sanction 
of the powerful religious community, which 
numbers amongst its members such noble char- 
acters as John Bunyan, Robert Hall and Have- 
lock. . . . But, speaking generally, the 
Christian civilized world has decided against it. 
It is a striking example of the triumph of com- 
mon sense and convenience over the bondage 
of form and custom. Perhaps no greater change 
has ever taken place in the outward form of a 
Christian ceremony with such general agree- 
ment. It is a greater change even than that 
which the Roman Catholic Church has made in 
administering the sacrament of the Lord's Sup- 
per in the bread without the wine. For that 
was a change which did not affect the thing that 
was signified ; whereas, the change from immer- 
sion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of 
the apostolic language regarding baptism y and has; 
altered the very meaning of the word. 

"But, whereas, thcwitholdingof the cup pro- 
duced the long and sanguinary war of Bohemia, 
and has been one of the standing grievances of 
the Protestants against the Roman Catholic 
Church, the withdrawal of the ancient rite of ir% 
mersion, decided by the usage of the whoie, 
ancient church to be essential to the sacrament 
of baptism, has been, with the exception of the 



2l6 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

insurrection of the Anabaptists of Munster, 
adopted almost without a struggle. It shows 
the wisdom of not imposing the customs of 
other regions and other climates on those to 
whom they are not congenial. // shows how 
the spirit which lives and moves in human society 
can override even the most sacked ordinances. . . . 
Another change is not so complete, but is 
perhaps more important. In the apostolic age 
and in the three centuries which followed, it is 
evident that, as a general rule, those who came 
to baptism came in full age, of their own de- 
liberate choice. We find a few cases of the bap- 
tism of children ; in the third century we find 
one case of the baptism of infants. Even 
amongst Christian households, the instances of 
Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Eph- 
rem of Edessa, Augustine and Ambrose are 
decisive proofs that it was not only not obliga- 
tory, but not usual. They had Christian parents, 
and yet they were not baptized till they reached 
maturity. The liturgical service of baptism was 
framed entirely for full-grown converts, and is, 
only by considerable adaptation, applied to the 
case of infants. Gradually, however, the prac- 
tice spread, and after the fifth century the whole 
Christian world, East and West, Catholic and 
Protestant, Episcopal and Presbyterian (with 
the single exception of the sect of Baptists be- 
fore mentioned), have baptized children in their 
infancy. Whereas, in the early ages, adult 
baptism was the rule, and infant baptism the 



MORE WITNESSES. 217 

exception, in later times infant baptism is the 
rule, and adult baptism the exception. 

"What is the justification of this almost uni- 
versal departure from the primitive usage ? 
There may have been many reasons, some bad, 
some good. One, no doubt, was the supersti- 
tious feeling already mentioned, which regarded 
baptism as a charm, indispensable to salvation, 
and which insisted on imparting it to every 
human being who could be touched with water, 
however unconscious. Hence the eagerness 
with which the Roman Catholic missionaries, 
like St. Francis Xavier, have made it the chief 
glory of their mission to have baptized heathen 
populations wholesale, in utter disregard of the 
primitive or Protestant practice of previous prep- 
aration. Hence the capture of children for 
baptism without the consent of their parents, as 
in the celebrated case of the Jewish boy Mor- 
tara. Hence the curious decision of the Sor- 
bonne, quoted in Tristram. Shandy. Hence, in 
the early centuries and still in the Eastern 
churches, coextensive with infant baptism, the 
practice of infant communion, both justified on 
the same grounds, and both based on the 
mechanical application of biblical texts to cases 
which, by their very nature, were not con- 
templated in the apostolic age." 

But, my dear brother, I am puzzled not a 
little by the fact that there are those claiming to 
be men of God — teachers of the people, too — 
who, in the face of the overwhelming evidence, 



2l8 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt 
that sprinkling and infant baptism are neither 
scriptural nor apostolic, stand up and tell the 
people that they are scriptural and apostolic 
practices. What shall I say of these men? 
What am I to think of them ? Would you have 
me become one of them? Are you fond of 
their company? Yours, . 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 2I9 



XI 

PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 



' 'He that lovetJi me not, keepeth not my sayings" 
— Jesus. 

My Dear Brother. — While the concessions 
of pedobaptist writers are numerous and strong, 
their defenses are few and weak. Instead of 
taking refuge in the strong ramparts of the citadel 
of divine truth, they seek protection behind 
an ever-varying line of temporary breastworks, 
constructed of brush-like, perishable materials. 
One fortifies with some decayed fragments of 
the ancient Jewish circumcision ; another creeps 
behind the old and tottering walls of an im- 
aginary, old-time Jewish Church ; while a third 
builds up a brave-looking stockade of the most 
approved guesses about certain possible babies 
in the households baptized by the apostles. 
Not a few dodge behind those late tables or 
couches in Mark vii. 4 ; while others construct 
a trelliswork of twisted Greek prepositions ; and 



220 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

others, still, hide behind "The element applied 
to the subject," and profess to find, in the 
Pentecostal descent. of the Holy Spirit, a literal 
baptism, justifying aspersion. 

These, indeed, are only samples of their 
wonderful and ever-changing devices, whose 
name is legion. But there is still another 
class of defenses employed by our pedo- 
baptist friends when their usual sophisms 
and assumptions prove inadequate. This 
consists of wholesale and persistent assertions. 
And sometimes they raise such a din, that 
many poor Baptists are frightened into a trem- 
bling silence ; while many good people, mistak- 
ing assertion for argument, are cheated, by this 
Chinese mode of warfare, into a complete sur- 
render. 

Assumptions, sophisms, assertions — these three 
words fairly describe all the defenses of infant 
baptism and sprinkling. Take each several 
defense urged by Catholic or Protestant, subject 
it to a thorough, rigid analysis, and it will in- 
variably prove to be either a mere assumption, 
a transparent sophism, or a bald, unwarranted 
assertion. Let us test this matter a little. The 
Catholic justifies the practice of his Church, in 
the baptism of infants and in the substitution of 
sprinkling for immersion, by the plea, that the 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 221 

"Church is above the written Word," and may, 
of right, change the precepts and ordinances of 
the gospel at her pleasure. What is this but an 
assumption of power altogether unwarrantable, 
and undeniably sacrilegious ? All true Prot- 
estants will unite heartily in denouncing it as 
the very essence of Antichrist. Yet it is the only 
Catholic defense of pedobaptism. 

But the Protestant pedobaptist, when called 
upon to defend his own pedobaptist practices, 
resorts at once to a series of assumptions, all of 
which are indefensible, and some of which are 
hardly less reprehensible than that which he so 
roundly condemns in the Catholic. He boldly 
assumes that obedience to the command of 
Christ, in the ordinance of baptism, is a matter 
of little or no importance ; that, whether we do 
the thing enjoined by our Lord or something 
else that he did not enjoin, is a matter of in- 
differency; thus setting aside his will in defer- 
ence to our own wish and preference. Thus, 
by his assumption, our Protestant pedobaptist 
friend claims for himself, individually, a power 
of setting aside the law of Christ, and of chang- 
ing his ordinances, which he indignantly denies 
to the entire Catholic Church. In order to find 
some shadow of excuse for persisting in the 
unscriptural practice of infant baptism, some of 



222 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

our pedobaptist brethren assume the identity of 
the old Jewish Commonwealth and the Church 
of Christ — an assumption so baseless and so 
ridiculous, and involving such a host of absurdi- 
ties, that it is difficult to realize that it can find 
lodgment, for a single moment, in a healthy 
mind. 

Then the related assumption, that baptism is 
really circumcision in another form, is so pre- 
posterous and so plainly opposed to scriptural 
facts, and carries with it logical sequences so 
stupendous, that one hardly knows how to deal 
with a mind that can entertain it ; and more 
especially since the use made of it, and the 
arbitrary limits assigned it, clearly demon- 
strate that those who urge it do not themselves 
believe it. For, if the assumption be granted, 
then it establishes not only infant baptism, but 
also the duty of baptizing all the children and all 
the servants in the family, no matter what their 
aees or their characters. 

Others assume that there were babes in the 
households baptized by the apostles, and then, 
assuming that the apostles actually baptized 
those hypothetical babes, they gravely proceed 
to build up the doctrine of infant baptism on 
these and kindred assumptions equally baseless. 
And, to cap the climax of these brazen assump- 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 223 

tions, with a cheek that is monumental, they 
assume that the burden of proof rests on those 
who refuse to accept their assumptions as his- 
toric facts, in the absence of any credible evi- 
dence. So the tricky Spiritualistic medium, 
taking you into a darkened room, contrives 
some mysterious raps, and then exclaims : 
' 'There, that's the spirits; and if it isn't the 
spirits, what is it ? " — adroitly throwing the 
burden of proof upon the objector. If you are 
not very green and too utterly creduous, you 
will reply: "Well, prove that it's the spirits, 
and then I will believe it. You assert it, and 
the burden of proof rests upon you." Such 
common sense treatment has a very depressing 
effect upon the apostles of Spiritualism. It 
checks the growth of that wild delusion in a 
way most discouraging to its friends. And the 
same sensible method applied to infant baptism, 
would have a like effect upon that unscriptural 
practice. Let good people demand evidence 
instead of assumption, in its behalf, and it will 
soon become a thing of the past. 

The literature of pedobaptism is peculiarly 
rich in sophisms. A few samples will illustrate 
the beauty and value of the entire assortment. 
Because true believers are said to be "children 
of Abraham" (Gal. iii. 7), we are gravely told 



224 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

that the children of such believers are also chil- 
dren of Abraham. Spiritual regeneration and 
natural generation are purposely confounded, 
treated as identical — a most transparent and un- 
warrantable sophism. The pretended argument 
is completely unmasked, the moment it is fully 
and formally stated, thus : ' 'You are a child of 
Abraham by a spiritual regeneration, therefore 
your unregenerate child is also a child of Abra- 
ham by natural generation." A false translation 
of a Greek preposition is made the basis of a 
labored sophism in favor of sprinkling. In our 
common English Version we read, in Matt. iii. 
n: '% indeed, baptize you with water;" and 
our scholarly pedobaptist friends, who know 
perfectly well that the true reading is in water, 
ring the changes on with water, and gravely 
assure us that Inspiration teaches that the ele- 
ment is applied to the subject, and not the subject 
to the element, and that John the Baptist being 
judge, we are to be baptized with water, not in 
it. That the true reading is in water needs no 
further proof than is found in the list of read- 
ings preferred by the American Committee, 
Class No. IX., in Appendix to Oxford Revision 
of 1 88 1. The American Committee, composed 
almost entirely of eminent pedobaptist scholars, 
unanimously preferred the reading in water; yet 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 225 

grave pedobaptist divines still urge the old, ex- 
ploded sophism, as if it were a legitimate argu- 
ment. 

The baptism of the Spirit on the day of 
Pentecost is made the basis of a similar sophism. 
"I will tell you," said a prominent Congrega- 
tional minister, "why I left the Baptists and 
became a Congregationalist. The account of 
the baptism of the Spirit on the day of Pente- 
cost convinces me that, while our Baptist 
brethren are right in holding that immersion is 
baptism, they are wrong in that they do not 
accept sprinkling also as baptism. On the 
day of Pentecost the Spirit was poured out upon 
the disciples, the element was applied to the 
subject, and Inspiration calls that baptism. 
And so, while I believe immersion is baptism, 
I regard sprinkling, also, as scriptural baptism." 
To this statement a friend made this reply : 
"My dear brother, you are in a dilemma. As 
a thinking man you must ultimately admit that 
your reason, just given, for quitting the Baptists 
and accepting sprinkling as scriptural baptism, 
is a first-class sophism, wholly destitute of truth, 
or you must reject Revelation altogether and 
avow yourself a materialistic atheist. As an in- 
telligent and thoroughly honest man, there is no 
third course open to you. For your supposed 



226 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

argument assumes a literal pouring out of the 
Spirit, as water is poured out of a cup ; it re- 
gards the element as a material substance literally- 
applied to the subject. But if this— which is 
essential to your argument — be true, then the 
Holy Spirit is matter, a material substance ; 
then God is matter and matter is God, and all 
religions are impossible and false, and materi- 
alistic atheism is true. But if the Holy Spirit 
be not a material substance, then he was not 
actually poured out, the element was not actually 
applied to the subject, and your argument is not 
actually an argument, but only a first-class 
sophism that proves nothing." 

You know, my dear Bro. H , that on 

the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was not 
literally poured out, nor sprinkled out, nor were 
the disciples literally immersed in him, but that 
they were filled and overwhelmed by his pres- 
ence and his transforming influences ; and that 
he is said to have been poured out, and his 
work is called a baptism, with reference, solely, 
to the overwhelming effects thereby produced, 
without the most distant allusion to the method 
of his coming or to the mode of his gracious 
and transforming operation. And you are also 
aware that the word baptism, in this Pentecostal, 
figurative use of it, derives all its force from the 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 227 

well-known overwhelming of the candidate, in- 
separable from a literal baptism, or immersion 
in water, so that this figurative use of the word 
amounts almost to a complete demonstration of 
its literal meaning. 

Another favorite sophism with many of our 
pedobaptist friends is to ask, "How were the 
Isralites 'baptized unto Moses in the cloud and 
in the sea'?" (i Cor. x. 2.) Here again the 
word is used figuratively, the cause being put 
for the effect. Those who are "baptized into 
Christ have put on Christ : " *. e., they have by 
that act, in a public manner, professed them- 
selves his disciples ; they have fully committed 
themselves to him, as their Lord and their Re- 
deemer, to lead them out of the bondage of sin 
and death into the heavenly Canaan. In pre- 
cisely the same way those who followed Moses 
into the sea beneath the cloud, committed them- 
selves entirely to him, as their trusted and chosen 
leader, to conduct them out of the prison-house 
of Egyptian bondage into the rest and the liberty 
of the earthly Canaan. 

As the disciple, in his baptism, commits all 
to Christ, so they committed all to Moses, and 
with reference solely to this complete commit- 
ment to Moses, their act is called a baptism. 
It may be that in their treatment of this matter 



228 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

our pedobaptist brethren act in good faith, but 
if so, their conduct is hardly creditable to their 
intelligence. 

But, fruitful as they are in assumptions and 
sophisms, our pedobaptist friends challenge ad- 
miration by the number and the boldness of 
their assertions. You can hardly imagine any- 
thing adverse to the practice of immersion that 
has not been roundly asserted by some fearless 
champion of sprinkling. Thus we have been 
told that John the Baptist could not have bap- 
tized by immersion, since the river Jordan is not 
deep enough to immerse people in; that the three 
thousand on the day of Pentecost could not have 
been immersed, since there was not enough watet 
in Jerusalem for the immersion of such a multitude; 
and all this in the face of the undeniable facts 
that the Jordan is so deep as to be fordable in a 
very few places only, and that the public reser- 
voirs of water in Jerusalem were numerous and 
very large, containing water enough for the 
immersion of hundreds of thousands of people. 
Thus, too, we are told that immersion is a bar- 
barous, indecent sort of practice, suited only to 
a rude age of society, and that it is not prac- 
ticable in cold climates, together with much 
more of the same sort. 

And occasionally some very bold champion 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 229 

of sprinkling, rises up to remark that il immer- 
sion is nowhere commanded in the Scriptures" 
An instance of this capital sort of assertion 
occurred quite recently. The Christian Ob- 
server is a Presbyterian newspaper, published 
in Louisville, Ky. In its issue of January 16, 
1884, on the first page, is a remarkable article, 
contributed by a certain D. D., resident some- 
where in Virginia. From the caption of his 
article, ' 'Church or Bible — Which?" one might 
infer that he is a very pious man — a truly good 
man — and greatly concerned because of the real 
or supposed encroachments of some ambitious 
church upon the authority of the Divine Word. 
The article proves that he is, indeed, a most 
peculiarly sensitive man in this respect, since 
he actually attempts to cudgel the Baptist 
Churches, as if they were guilty of usurping or 
attempting to usurp some sort of authority over 
the Word of God or the consciences of men 
— a people whose great mission has ever been 
to insist upon the absolute supremacy of the 
word of the Lord overall churches, and overall 
who profess themselves disciples of Christ. 

And this is a sample of his style of assertion : 
"We are told that not merely baptism, but one 
exclusive mode of baptism, is essential for ap- 
proaching the Lord's Table. But take the Bible, 



230 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

search it all through, and find one such teach- 
ing. It is not there. Don't misunderstand. 
Our Lord did command baptism. " 

Dear, generous man, in this last sentence, 
which I have taken the liberty to put in italics, 
he concedes, nay, asserts, a fact of grave im- 
portance. Baptism rests on a very solid foun- 
dation — the command of our Lord — this 
pedobaptist writer being witness. In his next 
sentence he is thoroughly orthodox, and all 
Baptists will take pleasure in indorsing his 
italicized declaration that ' 'every one who professes 
to obey him should be a baptized person.''' That, 
so far as it goes, is good, sound Bible doctrine, 
and equally sound Baptist doctrine, too. And 
the next four sentences of his article are also 
thoroughly orthodox. Baptists being the judges. 
I quote them: "'Ah!' says Close Commun- 
ion, 'that is just the point. You must be im- 
mersed, or you are disobedient to Christ ; 
therefore have no right to the Lord's Supper.' 
This means that Christ commanded immersion, 
or dipping, as the only baptism. The assertion 
is boldly made." Yes, and it is as true as it is 
bold, for it embodies the exact truth of God's 
Word on this matter. But hear our Presby- 
terian D.D. still further: "But take the Bible 
again, and search it through. * Where is that 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 23 I 

command ? It is not there. Not one verse nor 
word in the Bible puts any one wider the ivaten 
This mode is unknown to the Bible. Christ 
never once commanded immersion. But a branch 
of the Church commands it, and insists upon it 
as essential. Which is greater ? . Now, 

as there is no command for, nor example of, im- 
mersion, in the Bible, the demand for immer- 
sion, as a prerequisite for the Lord's Table, is 
without divine warrant. // is based entirely 
upon the human views of a branch of the Church. 
Is it, then, binding ? Which is greater — the 
Church or the Bible?" 

There is audacity for you. Such assertions 
leave nothing more to be asserted. They 
border on the sublime of a certain sort. Their 
author is certainly a brave man, brave to the 
verge of utter recklessness. He is not afraid 
of facts. If they are against him, so much the 
worse for the facts. He rushes against them 
without a tremor, and denies their existence 
with an amazing assurance. 

Seriously, it is difficult to deal with such 
utterly unwarrantable assertions with forbear- 
ance. In charity toward their author, I pre- 
sume he is a Christian, made such in his infancy 
by a beautiful christening ; but really I am afraid 
his christening didn't take — failed to strike in, 



232 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

so to speak — and so left him with very imper- 
fect ideas of the importance of truth-telling, as 
one of the Christian graces, whence it happens 
that he seems to make assertions with far more 
zeal than prudence and integrity. 

What will he do with the immense mass of 
pedobaptist evidence against him already cited 
in these letters, especially the testimony of 
Prof. H. A. W. Meyer, the late Dean Stanley, 
Storr and Flatt and Dr. Lange, not to mention 
scores of others ? And how will he go about 
it to translate Baptizontes in Matt, xxviii. 19, 
and e Baptisthe hupo Ioannou eis ton Iordanen, in 
Mark i. 9? 

Any possible honest translation of Baptizontes 
will suffice to refute perfectly his high-sounding 
assertions, and to demonstrate the well-estab- 
lished fact that our Lord does actually command 
immersion, and that only such as are properly 
immersed are properly baptized. If any pedo- 
baptist doubts this fact, let him test it by at- 
tempting or procuring such a translation, and 
he will speedily be convinced of its absolute 
truth. 

The balance of the article from which I have 
been quoting is taken up with sophisms and 
crude assertions directed against our Baptist 
practice of restricted communion. It is the 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 233 

same old, stale hash to which we have been so 
long and so liberally treated. I will not bore 
you with quotations from it, for there is noth- 
ing in it worthy the attention of earnest, intelli- 
gent men. 

But in the same paper, of January 9, 1884, 
there is an editorial on the fourth page, under 
the caption, "Who May Commune?" — an edi- 
torial so candid, so able and so conclusive that 
I gladly quote it entire. It is the production of a 
Presbyterian editor, and accords thoroughly 
with the principles and usage of the Presby- 
terian Church on the question discussed ; and I 
present it to you as a complete and triumphant 
scriptural vindication of our Baptist usages in 
respect to the Lord's Supper, premising only 
that which you already know, that by baptism 
we understand the immersion of a professed 
believer in Christ. He says : 

"A correspondent sends us the following 
question : 'One question I would be pleased to 
have answered in your paper, thus : If, during 
the hour of the sermon preceding the admin- 
istration of the Lord's Supper, a person becomes 
enlightened and fully believes in the cleansing 
power of the blood of Christ, and is truly con- 
verted, would it be according to the teachings of 
the Scriptures and of our Church for him to 
partake of the Lord's Supper without or before 



234 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

there is an opportunity of joining the church or 
being baptized ? ' 

' 'To us there seems to be little difficulty in 
the reply. // is not in accordance with the Word 
of God for a man to partake of the Lord 's Supper 
before t he has made a public profession of his faith 
in Christy or before he has been baptized. 

"The fact that this New Testament sacra- 
ment was instituted at the Passover Supper 
shows its substantial identity of significance with 
the Passover. As the Passover lamb represented 
the Messiah that was to come, the Lord's Supper 
represents the Messiah that has come. The law 
of the Passover was distinct, that no one could 
partake of the lamb till after he was circumcised. 
Whatever reason caused the enactment of that 
provision would prevail also in the case vaised 
by our correspondent. 

"The significance of the sacraments points to 
the same conclusion. Baptism signifies the en- 
trance of the believer on a life of piety ; the 
'putting off of the sins of the flesh,' 'our in- 
grafting into Christ,' our claiming 'the benefits 
of the new covenant,' and our profession of 
faith in Christ. The Lord's Supper represents 
our feeding on Christ by faith. The one repre- 
sents our admission to the feast ; the other, our 
partaking of it. If a man should commune be- 
fore baptism, he would be eating the feast be- 
fore he entered the room ; feeding on Christ 
before he even professed to be Christ's. This 
would be nonsense. 

"In accordance with this is the example of 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 235 

the apostles. We can not recall a case where a 
man was allowed to commune before baptism ; 
there are abundance of cases in which the man 
was baptized before communing ; in fact, every re- 
corded case follows this order. This fact is the 
more significant because many of these Jewish 
converts had been circumcised and might claim 
that this was an equivalent for baptism. Yet at 
Pentecost the apostles required a prof essio7i of faith, 
and baptism, even from circumcised Jews, before 
admission to the Lord 's Supper. 

"The Presbyterian Church follows these in- 
structions in inviting to the Lord's Table those 
who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity, and have 
manifested their love by a public prof ession of faith, 
in some evangelical church. 

"The position is fortified by the necessities 
of the case. The apostle Paul bids the churches 
to 'let all things be done decently and in order.' 
How can the 'order' of the church be main- 
tained, if each individual were to be allowed to 
decide for himself to what Christian privileges 
he is entitled ? The very idea of church govern- 
ment implies that the converted sinner must ap- 
ply to the regular authorities of the church for 
admission before he partakes of the sacrament 
peculiar to church-members alone." 

Now, my brother, I commend to your prayer- 
ful consideration this Presbyterian defense of 
the old apostolic practice of restricted commun- 
ion, so bitterly denounced by multitudes of 
pedobaptists when adopted and enforced by 



236 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

Baptists. If it is true and scriptural for Pres- 
byterians, why is it not equally so for Baptists? 
And if, as Baptists firmly believe, and as hosts 
of the wisest and most learned pedobaptists 
frankly confess, the immersion of a professed 
believer is the only scriptural baptism, how can 
Baptists honestly do otherwise than refuse to 
invite to the Lord's Table those who have not 
obeyed the Lord Jesus in scriptural baptism ? 
If sprinkling is not the act that Christ enjoins 
as baptism, then all those who have been 
sprinkled instead of being immersed are, in fact, 
not baptized. Believers they may be, but they 
are not baptized believers, and therefore are not 
scripturally qualified to partake of the Lord's 
Supper, our Presbyterian brethren themselves 
being judges. Why, then, should Baptists 
be traduced and vilified incessantly for their 
fidelity to Christ and to the order of his house ? 
Is it not enough that our pedobaptist friends 
set aside the authority of Christ in substituting 
rantism for baptism, and in rantizing infants, 
without adding unlimited abuse of such as are 
unwilling to sanction such disobedience ? 

Now suppose the editor, whose article I have 
just quoted, should become convinced that, 
after all, immersion is the only scriptural bap- 
tism, and that professed believers are the only 



PEDOBAPTIST DEFENSES. 237 

scriptural subjects of baptism, what could he 
do but take his place with close communion 
Baptists ? To-day the only legitimate question 
at issue between Baptists and Presbyterians, 
aside from the question of church government, 
is that of baptism — what it is and to whom it 
may be administered. Their views of doctrine 
generally, and their avowed views of the pri?i- 
c'ples regulating admission to the Lord's Table are 
identical. Let the question of baptism be settled 
on its own merits by an appeal to the Word of 
God, honestly, faithfully and fully translated into 
our vernacular, and Baptists will cheerfully 
abide the consequences. Let assumptions, 
sophisms, assertions and abuse give place to the 
Word of God. On that Word Baptists are firm- 
ly planted. There they learn that John the 
Baptist immersed such, and such only, as pro- 
fessed penitence, saving only our Lord himself, 
whom he reluctantly immersed into the Jordan 
"to fulfill all righteousness." There they hear 
Jesus saying, "Go teach all nations, immersing 
\_Baptizontes~\ them," etc. "He that believeth 
and is baptized \Baptistheis~\ shall be saved." 
There they see the words of Christ obeyed by his 
inspired apostles, who first preach the gospel, 
and then baptize such as believe, and such 
only. The word of the Lord is plain ; its mean- 



238 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

ing unmistakable. Baptists can not do other- 
wise than obey it. Why is it that pedobaptists 
refuse to do likewise ? My brother, I dare 
not return to you, but you can come to us, and 
Christ will approve. Will you do it ? 

Yours, . 



THE FOOT- LIGHTS FOCALIZED. 239 



XII. 

THE FOOT-LIGHTS FOCALIZED, 



"If ye knozv these things, happy are ye if ye do 
tJiem" — Jesus. 

My Dear Brother : — In this series of letters, 
I have placed before you a vast mass of evi- 
dence, drawn from the most approved pedo- 
baptist sources, demonstrating the unscriptural 
origin of infant baptism and sprinkling. I have 
called these testimonies Foot-lights, because 
they throw such a flood of light upon the scene. 
And it can not be denied that they make the 
situation interesting for our pedobaptist friends, 
exhibiting them as grave actors in a very solemn 
drama, contrived and foisted upon the churches 
by those ancient twin imposters — heresy and 
superstition. 

The situation is certainly very awkward for 
those actors; but the illumination, "though for 
the present grievous," may bring forth "the 
peaceable fruits of righteousness, " as it assuredly 



240 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

will in the case of each one who is rightly 
"exercised thereby." It is always unpleasant 
to be caught napping when one is reputed to be 
wide awake ; and sometimes good people get 
cross about it and say foolish things ; and it 
may be so with some of our pedobaptist friends 
when aroused by these penetrating Foot-lights. 
But why should a Christian man repel the light, 
or persist in practices honestly but ignorantly 
adopted, when they are clearly seen to be un- 
scriptural and wrong? It were "more noble" 
by far to face the music good-naturedly, and to 
"search the Scriptures daily" to see whether 
these things are true. And I doubt not that 
very many of our pedobaptist friends will act 
in this rational way, and, acting thus, they will 
be astonished at the correctness of these Foot- 
lights, and confess their fidelity to the truth. 
Nor will they stop there ; but, having learned 
the truth, as true disciples of the Master they 
will hasten to do it. And in that grand com- 
pany of obedient ones I hope to see my dear 
old friend, whose deliverance from the meshes 
of atheism and conversion to Christ gave me 
such great joy long years ago. 

These Foot-lights are foot-lights in their 
offices only. In quality, brilliancy and power, 
each one of them is a vast concentrated head- 



THE FOOTLIGHTS FOCALIZED. 24 1 

light. Among the many scores of witnesses 
whose testimony I have placed before you in 
these letters, not one is "below par" in learning 
and credit. They are, each and all, men of the 
highest order of scholarship — men whose posi- 
tion and influence are thoroughly established. 
As witnesses in this controversy they are every 
way competent, and their testimony amounts 
to a demonstration that Baptists are in the 
right. Permit me, in this closing letter, to 
sum up their testimony — to focalize it, so to 
speak — that you may the more easily and clear- 
ly discern its completeness, and that you may 
feel somewhat its invincible force and yield 
your judgment to its convincing power. 

1. The lexicons teach that the Greek word 
for baptism means immersion, and that to baptize 
is to immerse. The fact that they so teach is in- 
disputable. One of the foremost among Ameri- 
can pedobaptist scholars, Moses Stuart, assures 
us that "all lexicographers and critics of any 
note are agreed in this." This being true, 
it follows that our Lord commanded immer- 
sion, and that only those who have been immersed 
have obeyed that command. It also follows 
that sprinkling is 7iot baptisuc at all, and there- 
fore, that it is not scriptural baptism. From 
this it follows also that those persons who have 
16 



242 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

been sprinkled, instead of being immersed, have 
not been baptized. That the lexicons voice the 
judgment of the learned world, will not be dis- 
puted by men who are intelligent, candid and 
honest. 

2. The great mass of the encyclopedias con- 
Jinn the testimony of the lexicons, and show that 
immersion was the ancient practice of all the churches r 
and that during many hundreds of years. Some 
of them also show that infant baptism was not 
established by our Lord, nor by his apostles, 
and that it was unknown in the apostolic age, 
and for at least one hundred and fifty years 
afterward. Those of the encyclopedias that 
do not affirm the post-apostolic origin of infant 
baptism, do not deny it. The encyclopedias 
are against infant baptism. 

3. The great pedobaptist historians of the 
church testify unanimously that immersion was the 
old apostolic practice, and that it continued to be 
the general custom of Christendom for many ages. 
They also testify that infant baptism is not of 
apostolic origin, but that it arose long after the 
apostolic age ; and the greatest among all pedo- 
baptist church historians, Neander, gives an 
elaborate account of the heresies and supersti- 
tions out of which it was gradually evolved. 
And he shows conclusively that infant baptism 



THE FOOT-LIGHTS FOCALIZED. 243 

was born of the heresy of baptismal regenera- 
tion, nursed and nourished by an almost in- 
credible superstition, favored by dense and 
almost universal ignorance, and that even then 
it attained to general acceptance only through 
many ages of doubt, dissent and conflict. 

It is undeniable that ecclesiastical history, as 
it is voiced by pedobaptist historians of the 
greatest eminence, is against infant baptism, 
demonstrating the historic fact that it is not an 
apostolic institution, but an invention of subse- 
quent and very corrupt ages. 

4. A large number of most credible pedobaptist 
writers assure us that immersion continued to be 
the general practice of the Christian world for 
thirteen hundred years. Not until the fourteenth 
century did sprinkling obtain official recogni- 
tion as of equal validity with immersion, and 
then only in the Church of Rome. This fact 
is established in these letters by a large number 
of thoroughly competent pedobaptist witnesses. 

5. All pedobaptist expositors, excepting only 
two or three very modern ones, concede that in 
Rom. vi. 4, the apostle alludes to "the ancient 
baptism by immersion." The array of witnesses 
on this point is overwhelming. Men of every 
pedobaptist denomination in Christendom, em- 
bracing a vast company of the most eminent 



244 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

scholars and expositors, assure us that the in- 
spired writer alludes to immersion ; and in the 
whole Christian world there are found, in all 
the ages, only two or three who in any way 
dissent from this general verdict. But such 
apostolic allusion leaves no room to doubt that 
immersion was the apostolic baptism, and if so, 
it must have been the baptism commanded by 
our Lord, and substantially the same as that to 
which he himself submitted at the hands of 
John the Baptist in the waters of the Jordan. 
It is, then, beyond any reasonable doubt, the 
baptism which he to-day requires of his people, 
and at which so many who profess to be his dis- 
ciples are so accustomed to sneer. 

6. Hosts of the ablest and most learned ofpedo- 
baptist scholars frankly admit that infant baptism 
is not taught in the New Testament, by precept nor 
by example. In these letters I have laid before 
you the testimony of many of these eminent 
men, proving, conclusively, that the baptism of 
infants is not authorized nor required in the 
New Testament Scriptures. And one of these 
witnesses, Rev. A. T. Bledsoe, D. D., LL. D., 
says: "With all our searching, we have been 
unable to find in the New Testament a single 
express declaration or word in favor of infant bap- 
tism." He proposes, therefore, to "justify the 



THE FOOT-LIGHTS FOCALIZED. 245 

right solely on the ground of logical inference, and 
not on any express word of Christ or his apos- 
tles." And this, he assures us, is not "a singu- 
lar opinion," adding: "Hundreds of learned 
pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion. " 
There is not one argument for the baptism of 
infants in the whole range of pedobaptist litera- 
ture that is not rejected as utterly worthless by 
multitudes of able and zealous pedobaptists, 
and universally the defenses set up by any one 
set of pedobaptists are repudiated and laughed 
at by hosts of others, equally intelligent and 
pious advocates of the same practice. This one 
undeniable fact is, of itself, a demonstration 
that infant baptism is not of God. 

7. A multitude of the most eminent pedo- 
baptist writers and scholars concede that the 
Greek for baptism means immersion. 

In these letters I have placed before you a part 
only of the great host of such concessions made 
freely by the foremost scholars and thinkers of 
the entire pedobaptist world. No man can re- 
fute these concessions. Rarely, if ever, do Ave 
hear of one who has the hardihood to make the 
attempt. There is, indeed, a certain class of 
advocates of sprinkling who make reckless as- 
sertions about the meaning of the Greek term. 
I recollect a case in point. Some years ago, at 



246 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

the request of my brethren, I spoke on * 'Bap- 
tism" at one of my regular appointments, and 
showed, from pedobaptist authorities, that the 
word used by our Lord enjoining baptism means 
to immerse, arguing thence that the command 
to baptize is a command to immerse. A few 

days afterward, Rev. T. W , a minister of 

the Methodist Episcopal Church, replied, ad- 
mitting all I had said about the meaning of bap- 
tizo and its derivatives, but gravely assuring his 
hearers that neither baptizo nor its derivatives 
are ever used in the Scriptures to indicate bap- 
tism ! I suppose the good brother did not 
know any better, and I trust his tribe is gradu- 
ally dying out. But the fact remains, and 
daily grows more evident, that real pedobaptist 
scholarship condemns the pretensions of pedo- 
baptist practices. 

8. Eminent pedobaptist expositors translate bap- 
tizo by immerse. Such translation we have in 
Lange on Matthew, as you have already seen 
in these letters. And this is the only transla- 
tion of the word that pedobaptist scholars dare 
to make, and it is to their credit that they do 
not attempt any other. Dean Stanley assures 
us that, ' 'on philological grounds, " such transla- 
tion is correct. It is true, they might use some 
other word, such as dip or plunge — the equiva- 



THE FOOT-LIGHTS FOCALIZED. 247 

lent of immerse — but none others. Whenever 
the mass of our pedobaptist expositors under- 
take to translate baptizo, the occupation of 
the sprinklers will be gone. For one, I believe 
in the honesty and Christian integrity of our 
pedobaptist laity, and I am confident that when 
the time comes, as come it will, when they shall 
have before them the whole Bible honestly 
translated, they will arise in their might and 
utterly banish sprinkling from their churches. 
To-day they are befogged and misled by men 
from whom they have a ' right to expect better 
things ; but to-morrow they will discover the 
deception, and their leaders will suddenly learn 
that it is "expedient" to translate the Word of 
God honestly and fully. 

9. The practice of restricted communion is 
scriptural and right, eminent pedobaptist writers 
and whole denominations of pedobaptists being 
judges. It is true, that in these letters I have 
quoted only one pedobaptist writer on this sub- 
ject, but his article is unanswerable. He vindi- 
cates the practice of the Presbyterian Church in 
restricting the privileges of the Lord's Table to 
those who, in the judgment of that Church, are 
duly baptized members of Evangelical Churches 
and properly qualified to partake of the sacred 
Supper. That vindication is complete. For 



248 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

"Presbyterian Church" substitute "Baptist 
Churches," and it is none the less complete as 
a full vindication, a triumphant scriptural de- 
fense of our Baptist usage of restricted com- 
munion. In its application to practice among 
us, it cuts off Presbyterians from the Lord's 
Table, simply because, in the judgment of 
Baptist Churches, they are not scripturally bap- 
tized. Immersed members of pedobaptist 
churches are rejected from the Lord's Table 
by Baptists, because they "walk disorderly," 
living in avowed fellowship with erroneous doc- 
trines and practices, and daily aiding and abet- 
ting usages and principles which, in their own 
baptism, they have condemned as unscriptural 
and wrong. 

10. The great contending force s y - in this mighty 
conflict, are Christ and the world. This is clearly 
shown by the testimony of Dean Stanley, quoted 
in my tenth letter. The change from immer- 
sion to sprinkling shows how ' 'the spirit which 
lives and moves in human society can override 
even the most sacred ordinances " And the 
change from believers' baptism to infant bap- 
tism, conceded and traced out by this writer, 
and by many others, shows the same thing even 
more forcibly. Here are the facts : Christ es- 
tablishes a sacred ordinance, gives it the sane- 



THE FOOT-LIGHTS FOCALIZED. 249 

tion of his own example, and confirms it with 
all the weight and authority of a solemn, foimal 
command. For a time it is duly observed by 
his professed people, but a change comes. ' 'The 
spirit which lives and moves in human society' 
overrides it — changes its form, its subject, its 
significance, if not its entire substance — setting 
aside the example and authority of Christ in the 
house of his professed friends ; and the whole 
Christian world, excepting only "the austere 
sect of the Baptists," follows this "spirit which 
lives and moves in human society." Only "the 
austere sect of the Baptists" refuses to bow 
down to this spirit. In the general stampede 
from Christ, they alone remain loyal to him ; 
they alone cherish his most sacred ordinances ; 
they alone recognize his command as the su- 
preme rule of conduct. 

The late Dean Stanley, one of the most emi- 
nent of pedobaptist authorities, being judge, 
the controversy is between Christ and the 
"austere sect of the Baptists," on one side, 
and "the spirit which lives and moves in 
human society" and the whole pedobaptist 
world, on the other side. This is substantially 
the latest pedobaptist statement of the case, and 
it certainly contains "food for thought. " Though 
seemingly rash, it is undeniably true. The Bap- 



250 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

tists are contending for the "old paths," and 
for a full recognition of the authority of Christ 
in his own Church against those who prefer to 
do the bidding of "the spirit which lives and 
moves in human society," by overriding the 
most sacred ordinances. Alas ! that the great 
majority of those who profess to be the friends 
of our Lord should be found in alliance with his 
most determined foe — "the spirit which lives 
and moves in human society." 

I thank God, that in this conflict, so strange 
and unnatural, I am permitted to march and do 
battle under the banner of the Lord Jesus, with 
the few, rather than under the lead of that 
spirit which overrides the most sacred ordi- 
nances, with the many. 

Now my dear brother, I think you can, in 
some good degree, understand how it is that I 
can not accept your courteous invitation to re- 
turn to my old pedobaptist church home. Out 
of their own mouths, pedobaptists stand con- 
victed of heretical, schismatic and unscriptural 
practices. By their own showing, they are en- 
gaged in overriding and perverting a sacred 
ordinance, instituted by our Lord himself, 
"teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
men," and substituting for ordinances the in- 
ventions of men. As a loyal disciple of the 



THE FOOT-LIGHTS FOCALIZED. 25 I 

Master, I can not fellowship these "unfruitful 
works of darkness." It is clearly my duty to 
"rather reprove them." And, in the light of 
the ever-growing evidence of their true charac- 
ter and tendencies, my disposition to "reprove- 
them" coincides very fully with my duty. In 
fact, I think you may write me down a con- 
firmed Baptist of the strictest sort. I can not 
be anything else and be loyal to the Word of 
God. Doubless we Baptists have much to 
learn — whole continents of truth, it may be — 
though I can not imagine what particular quar- 
ter of the spiritual universe such continents oc- 
cupy ; and we certainly have much to correct, 
and vast improvements to make in our daily 
walk, before we attain to perfection ; but by 
grace we are what we are, and by grace we 
hope daily to approximate more nearly the true 
ideal of a Christian people. But we are not 
alone in our defects, though we do seem to be 
pretty much alone in our unswerving fealty to 
Christ. And this I say, not to boast of our 
obedience, but in a brotherly way, to rebuke 
the disobedience of others. And that disobe- 
dience is no "man of straw," set up as a pre- 
text for battle, but a widespread, arrogant and 
persistent revolt against the authority of Christ, 
among those who call themselves his friends. 
The revolt of pedobaptism has long been a very 



252 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

lively and terrible thing. From its beginning 
it has ever been a persecutor of such of the 
Lord's people as would not tamely submit to its 
dictation. Thank God, the Inquisition is 
abolished, the fires of Smithfield are quenched, 
and the whipping-posts of Boston are a thing of 
the past. They no more terrify those who 
would observe the ordinances of the Lord's 
house in the way that the Master directs. But 
their existence and deadly work, and their ori- 
gin, who can forget ? They were called into 
existence by "the spirit that lives and moves 
in human society," to execute his bloody be- 
hests, that he might "override even the most 
sacred ordinances." And though they have 
been banished by an outraged and indignant 
humanity, in some greater degree enlightened 
by the spirit of the gospel, yet the "spirit" 
that contrived and employed them still lives, 
and still pursues with relentless purpose, but 
by different methods, his great scheme of op- 
posing Christ and "overriding" his "most sacred 
ordinances." To-day he persecutes, wherever 
he can, by social forces, by parental authority 
and by churchly influences. 

This is no idle fancy. Even now we have a 
most painful case of it in this city, directed 
against a member of my congregation, who de- 
sires to unite with my church. It is quite as- 



THE FOOT-LIGHTS FOCALIZED. 253 

tonishing how our pedobaptist friends love us, 
until some of their friends show indications of 
becoming Baptists. I always did sympathize 
with the persecuted, and, in this class of cases, 
knowing them to be the better Christians, such 
unfairness as I too frequently witness only 
makes me love the Baptists the more. 

But, my brother, what of the night with you? 
Will you still remain a pedobaptist, despite the 
burning rays of these Foot-lights? Perhaps 
you may think there is some mistake about 
these testimonies. If so, please take your time 
and investigate them thoroughly. • Examine 
the lexicons, look into the encyclopaedias, 
trace up the quotations, one by one. Read 
Mosheim, Neander, Lange, Meyer, Geikie and 
Stanley, and all the rest, for yourself, and then 
refute them if you can. And if you attempt a 
refutation, do me the favor to send it to me, 
and (D. V.) I will read every line of it with the 
utmost care; and if you make good your 
refutation, I will come back to the pedobaptists 
at once. But if you can not make such refuta- 
tion satisfactory to your own judgment and 
conscience, then lose no time in abandoning a 
a bad cause. May the Lord direct your mind 
and heart into the knowledge and love of the 
truth, and that very speedily, that your life 
and labors and entire influence may tell on the 



254 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

side of truth. Why should you not march 
under the banner of Christ, rather than cower 
under the tyranny of that "spirit that lives and 
moves in human society," and that finds nothing 
else quite so agreeable as to "override even the 
most sacred ordinances" of the Lord's house, 
and to set at naught his divine authority ? Does 
this way of putting it startle you? Rest assured, 
the question, in just that form, is fully warranted 
by the facts. I own that I am responsible for 
the question, but you are largely responsible 
for those facts that make it pertinent when ad- 
dressed to you. Come, gird yourself, and tell 
me : 

1. How you became a pedobaptist? 

2. Why you remain a pedobaptist? 

3. Whether you have ever thoroughly investi- 
gated pedobaptism in the light of God's Word, 
intent on learning the truth ? 

4. If so, whether you found infant baptism 
and sprinkling in the Bible ? 

5. If so, where you found them, chapter and 
verse ? 

6. If not, why do you continue to counte- 
nance them ? 

7. If not, why do you not utterly and speedily 
reject them ? 

A severe catechism ? Well, not half as 
severe as the one the Master will put you 



THE FOOT-LIGHTS FOCALIZED. 255 

through, by and by, if your pedobaptist prac- 
tices really are not of God. Need I assure 
you that I seek only your good and the honor 
of the Master ? I have no personal interest to 
promote in trying to open your eyes to the 
truth. Whether you become a Baptist, or re- 
main a pedobaptist, is a matter of total indiffer- 
ence to all my personal interests. I have no ax 
to grind, not even a hatchet, but I do love the 
Master and his Church, and his truth, and I 
love my pedobaptist brethren so well that I 
dare to tell them the truth in hope of doing them 
good. My little catechism, consisting of only 
seven questions, will doubtless trouble you, 
but how then will you meet the inquisition of 
the Master when he comes forth to probe every 
thought of the heart? "Brethren, if our heart 
condemn us, God is greater than our heart and 
knoweth all things." Remember, my brother, 
that truth only is of real enduring value. The 
poet sings, as with prophetic ken : 

"Truth crushed to earth shall rise again ; 

The eternal years of God are hers ; 
But error, wounded, writhes in pain, 

And dies amid her worshipers." 

In the hope that you will "buy the truth and 
sell it not/' I have written you these letters. In 
my book "Behind the Scenes," if you chance 
to read it, you will catch some glimpses of the 



256 BEFORE THE FOOT-LIGHTS. 

struggle through which I passed in detecting 
and renouncing the errors of pedobaptism. At 
that time many of the pedobaptist testimonies 
quoted in these letters had not been written. 
Others were not within my reach. Only a few 
of them came to my knowledge at that time. 
But I read scores of pedobaptist defenses, sub- 
jecting each one to a friendly but rigid scrutiny, 
with ever-multiplying discoveries of their un- 
soundness and total inadequacy. Then, last of 
all, I read, searchingly and prayerfully, that 
Book of books, the Word of the living God, 
and was thoroughly convinced that sprinkling 
and infant baptism are not of God, and forth- 
with I gave them up. I will not say, "Go, thou, 
and do likewise," but rather, Go at once to the 
only safe rule of faith and practice — the Holy 
Scriptures — and search them daily for the right 
way. And if you find, as you surely will, that 
your pedobaptist practices are not taught in the 
Word of God, make haste to banish them from 
your creed and from your work. It is infinitely 
better to be right than to be popular at the ex- 
pense of the truth. One man on the side of 
God is a majority. And though the multitude 
may array themselves against him for a time, 
yet God will approve, and ultimately the truth 
of God will prevail. As ever, yours, 

F. M. Iams. 



BEHIND THE' S(3Ef^ES. 

By REV. F. M. IAMS. 



One of the most popular works ever published on "Baptism" and 
"Communion." 



In a series of sketches, for the most part narrating per- 
sonal experiences, the author, formerly a Congregationalist, 
but now a Baptist minister, tells of the troubles experienced 
by pedobaptists in their efforts to sustain their own prac- 
tices. At the same time, it shows the unsatisfactory and 
unavailing character of the arguments adduced ; presenting 
those to establish the doctrines and practices of the Baptists, 
in such a manner that the reader is convinced before being 
aware of it, and wakes up to a sense of the duty of baptism 
and an " orderly walk." 

The sketches were first published in the Journal and 
Messenger, of Cincinnati, O., and such was their popu- 
larity that thousands of copies were immediately sold to 
subscribers to that paper who had read the sketches as they 
appeared. The publisher is constantly receiving informa- 
tion of the conversion of one and another to Baptist views, 
by reading " Behind the Scenes." 

It is a duodecimo volume of 219 pages, on good paper, 
clear type, and well bound; and, in order that it may have 
the widest possible circulation, the price has been put 
at only 75 cents by mail, postage paid. Liberal re- 
ductions made to pastors and agents who promote the sale 
of the book. Agents wanted in every Baptist Church. 
Address 

GK W. LASHER, 

Publisher "Journal and Messenger," 

CINCINNATI, OHIO. 



BEFORE THE FOOTLIGHTS. 

By the Author of " Behind the Scenes." 



A series of letters, in which the author, once a Congre- 
gational minister, but now a highly esteemed and successful 
Baptist pastor, replies to the inquiry of an old pedobaptist 
friend who asks : ' ' Why not return to your old Church 
home?" 

In his answer the author tells his reasons, by reciting such 
facts and arguments as make the adherents of pedobaptism 
appear to be acting a part on the stage — " Before the Foot- 
lights" — while the writer looks on and criticises the per- 
formance, giving his reasons for not joining in the farce. 

The style of the book is admirable ; the arguments are 
ably and fairly presented, so that a child can understand 
them; the tone and spirit are kind, conciliatory and per- 
suasive ; but the facts and the quotations from various 
pedobaptist authors are so set forth, as to carry conviction 
to any but the most obdurate opponent. 

The letters were first published in the Journal and Mes- 
senger; but the demand for their publication in a more 
permanent form has induced the author and the publisher 
to put them in the form of this well-printed and well-bound 
duodecimo volume of more than 220 pages, selling at the 
low price of only 75 cents, postage prepaid. Agents wanted 
in every church, to whom liberal discounts will be made. 
Send for terms. Address 

GO W. LASHER, 

Publisher "Journal and Messenger," 

CINCINNATI, O. 



WHAT THE PAPERS SAY 



Behind the Scenes. 



If any of our readers want a book that, if read, will stiffen 
their backbone as Baptists, let them send to the Journal 
and Messenger, Cincinnati, O., and ask for " Behind the 
Scenes." We read the articles as they were printed in the 
columns of that paper, and pronounce them among the best 
things of the kind we ever read. — Baptist Nation. 



We have just received the book, and regard it as among 
the most interesting additions made to our literature on the 
baptismal question in half a dozen years. It will be inter- 
esting reading to Baptists and pedobaptists as well. We 
commend it heartily. — Alabama Baptist. 



The arguments are extremely telling and cogent, yet they 
are urged in a kind, Christian, not in the least bitter spirit. 
— Christian 'Secretary. 



Mo one can fail to be benefited by reading carefully this 
unique book. Pedobaptists will find themselves fairly re- 
presented, and their views in general correctly stated. — 
Texas Baptist. 



The book has not a dull page in it, and is not only ex- 
ceedingly interesting as a narrative, but can not but prove 
helpful to earnest, inquiring minds who desire to know and 
do their duty. — Baptist Weekly. 



It is not often that a book deserves to be read at once 
as this does by everybody, and especially by every pedo- 
baptist. It tells the story of the baptismal controversy 
capitally. The little book will make an impression and 
rank first class in polemic literature. — Herald of Truth. 



We trust the book may accomplish great good in opening 
the eyes of our pedobaptist friends to the weakness and un- 
cripturalness of their position, and that they may have not 
only light to see, but grace to follow the light. — National 
Baptist. 



The story is a captivating one ; is bestudded at every point 
with sparkling gems of truth, and is so presented as to 
disarm prejudice at the outset. We know of no book so 
valuable as a hand-book for Baptists to use with their pedo- 
baptist friends. Send and get the book and loan it, and keep 
on loaning it.— Am. Bap. Re/lector. 



We emphatically commend the book. Our brethren in the 
ministry of other denominations ought to read it. — Watch- 
Tower. 



The sketches are well written, very sensible and pointed, 
and show very conclusively the inconsistencies of pedobapists 
and the logical correctness of Baptist views, as well as their 
accordance with Scripture. The book is not only interesting 
but very instructive, and should be read by old and young. — 
Kind Words. 



We congratulate the author and thank the publisher, and 
commend the volume to all our readers. It is the very book 
to put into the hands of inquiring pedobaptists. Send and 
get it. — Arkansas Evangelist. 



As we said a few weeks ago, it is a book that will do to 
buy, to read and to lend. — Texas Baptist Herald. 



These sketches as they appeared in the Journal and 
Messenger attracted wide attention. In the permanent 
form in which they now appear, they are worthy of the 
widest circulation — Zion's Advocate. 



It is the very book for the masses of the people and for 
Baptists to loan to their pedobaptist neighbors and relatives. 
— Tennessee Baptist. 



The book is not only interesting but very instructive, and 
should be read by old and young. — Biblical Recorder. 



The book ought to be in every Baptist family, and it is 
an excellent thing to put into the hands of any who de- 
sire to know about the Baptists. We give it hearty com- 
mendation. — Central Baptist. 



No recent contribution to Baptist literature has been more 
gladly welcomed. — Mich. Christian Herald. 



We are pained to know that Mr. lams charges pedobap- 
tists with lack of candor, but it is more painful to observe 
that he has proved his case. — Watchman. 



We had one chapter of its contents in the Messenger 
a few weeks since, and may possibly extract another shortly, 
but the book should be read to be fully appreciated. — 
Christian Messenger, Halifax, Nova, Scotia. 



There is no dullness, nor sameness, nor weariness going 
over old ground, in a single page'. It is bright, spicy, elo- 
quent, amusing, instructive, with a -frank, manly, Pauline 
piety and devotion to truth, which can not fail to profit 
every reader. . . 

This book is so well and wittily written that it would 
interest a man who cared nothing for Christ's commands. 
It is, of all books on the subject we have seen, the best 
for Baptists to put into the hands of pedobaptist friends ; 
the New Testament, of course, excepted. It is the "very 
thing for the young Baptists to read on this subject, and it. 
will be a treat to older Baptists who have grown a little 
weary of the usual style of such books. — Western Recorder. 



n 




